Ijaz Sharea, Davies Philippa, Williams Catherine J, Kessler David, Lewis Glyn, Wiles Nicola
NIHR CLAHRC West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Lewins Mead, Whitefriars Building, Bristol, UK, BS1 2NT.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 14;5(5):CD010558. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010558.pub2.
BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are a first-line treatment for adults with moderate to severe major depression. However, many people prescribed antidepressants for depression don't respond fully to such medication, and little evidence is available to inform the most appropriate 'next step' treatment for such patients, who may be referred to as having treatment-resistant depression (TRD). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance suggests that the 'next step' for those who do not respond to antidepressants may include a change in the dose or type of antidepressant medication, the addition of another medication, or the start of psychotherapy. Different types of psychotherapies may be used for TRD; evidence on these treatments is available but has not been collated to date.Along with the sister review of pharmacological therapies for TRD, this review summarises available evidence for the effectiveness of psychotherapies for adults (18 to 74 years) with TRD with the goal of establishing the best 'next step' for this group. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of psychotherapies for adults with TRD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (until May 2016), along with CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO via OVID (until 16 May 2017). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. There were no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 to 74 years diagnosed with unipolar depression that had not responded to minimum four weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. We excluded studies of drug intolerance. Acceptable diagnoses of unipolar depression were based onthe Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) or earlier versions, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, Feighner criteria, or Research Diagnostic Criteria. We included the following comparisons.1. Any psychological therapy versus antidepressant treatment alone, or another psychological therapy.2. Any psychological therapy given in addition to antidepressant medication versus antidepressant treatment alone, or a psychological therapy alone.Primary outcomes required were change in depressive symptoms and number of dropouts from study or treatment (as a measure of acceptability). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data, assessed risk of bias in duplicate, and resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation with a third person. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses when appropriate. We summarised continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), and dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RRs). MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials (n = 698; most participants were women approximately 40 years of age). All studies evaluated psychotherapy plus usual care (with antidepressants) versus usual care (with antidepressants). Three studies addressed the addition of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) to usual care (n = 522), and one each evaluated intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy (ISTDP) (n = 60), interpersonal therapy (IPT) (n = 34), or group dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT) (n = 19) as the intervention. Most studies were small (except one trial of CBT was large), and all studies were at high risk of detection bias for the main outcome of self-reported depressive symptoms.A random-effects meta-analysis of five trials (n = 575) showed that psychotherapy given in addition to usual care (vs usual care alone) produced improvement in self-reported depressive symptoms (MD -4.07 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.07 to -1.07 on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scale) over the short term (up to six months). Effects were similar when data from all six studies were combined for self-reported depressive symptoms (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.14; n = 635). The quality of this evidence was moderate. Similar moderate-quality evidence of benefit was seen on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Scale (PHQ-9) from two studies (MD -4.66, 95% CI 8.72 to -0.59; n = 482) and on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) from four studies (MD -3.28, 95% CI -5.71 to -0.85; n = 193).High-quality evidence shows no differential dropout (a measure of acceptability) between intervention and comparator groups over the short term (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.24; six studies; n = 698).Moderate-quality evidence for remission from six studies (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.52; n = 635) and low-quality evidence for response from four studies (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.7; n = 556) indicate that psychotherapy was beneficial as an adjunct to usual care over the short term.With the addition of CBT, low-quality evidence suggests lower depression scores on the BDI scale over the medium term (12 months) (RR -3.40, 95% CI -7.21 to 0.40; two studies; n = 475) and over the long term (46 months) (RR -1.90, 95% CI -3.22 to -0.58; one study; n = 248). Moderate-quality evidence for adjunctive CBT suggests no difference in acceptability (dropout) over the medium term (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.47; two studies; n = 549) and lower dropout over long term (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97; one study; n = 248).Two studies reported serious adverse events (one suicide, two hospitalisations, and two exacerbations of depression) in 4.2% of the total sample, which occurred only in the usual care group (no events in the intervention group).An economic analysis (conducted as part of an included study) from the UK healthcare perspective (National Health Service (NHS)) revealed that adjunctive CBT was cost-effective over nearly four years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence shows that psychotherapy added to usual care (with antidepressants) is beneficial for depressive symptoms and for response and remission rates over the short term for patients with TRD. Medium- and long-term effects seem similarly beneficial, although most evidence was derived from a single large trial. Psychotherapy added to usual care seems as acceptable as usual care alone.Further evidence is needed on the effectiveness of different types of psychotherapies for patients with TRD. No evidence currently shows whether switching to a psychotherapy is more beneficial for this patient group than continuing an antidepressant medication regimen. Addressing this evidence gap is an important goal for researchers.
背景:抗抑郁药是治疗中度至重度成人重度抑郁症的一线药物。然而,许多因抑郁症而开具抗抑郁药的人对这类药物并未完全产生反应,而且几乎没有证据可用于指导针对这类患者(可能被称为难治性抑郁症(TRD)患者)的最恰当“下一步”治疗。英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)指南表明,对抗抑郁药无反应者的“下一步”治疗可能包括改变抗抑郁药物的剂量或类型、添加另一种药物或开始心理治疗。不同类型的心理治疗可用于TRD;有关这些治疗的证据是可用的,但迄今为止尚未进行整理。
本综述与TRD药物治疗的姊妹综述一起,总结了针对18至74岁TRD成人患者心理治疗有效性的现有证据,目的是为该群体确定最佳的“下一步”治疗方案。
目的:评估心理治疗对TRD成人患者的有效性。
检索方法:我们检索了Cochrane常见精神障碍对照试验注册库(截至2016年5月),以及通过OVID检索的CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase和PsycINFO(截至2017年5月16日)。我们还检索了世界卫生组织(WHO)试验注册平台(ICTRP)和ClinicalTrials.gov以识别未发表和正在进行的研究。没有日期或语言限制。
入选标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT),参与者年龄在18至74岁之间,被诊断为单相抑郁症,且在推荐剂量下接受至少四周抗抑郁治疗后无反应。我们排除了药物不耐受的研究。单相抑郁症的可接受诊断基于《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》(DSM-IV-TR)或更早版本、《国际疾病分类》(ICD)-10、费格纳标准或研究诊断标准。我们纳入了以下比较:
数据收集与分析:我们提取数据,对偏倚风险进行双人评估,并通过讨论或与第三方协商解决分歧。我们在适当的时候进行随机效应荟萃分析。我们使用平均差(MDs)或标准化平均差(SMDs)总结连续结局,使用风险比(RRs)总结二分结局。
主要结果:我们纳入了六项试验(n = 698;大多数参与者为40岁左右的女性)。所有研究均评估了心理治疗加常规治疗(使用抗抑郁药)与常规治疗(使用抗抑郁药)。三项研究探讨了在常规治疗中添加认知行为疗法(CBT)(n = 522),一项研究分别评估了强化短期动态心理治疗(ISTDP)(n = 60))人际关系治疗(IPT)(n = 34)或团体辩证行为疗法(DBT)(n = 19)作为干预措施。大多数研究规模较小(除一项CBT试验规模较大),并且所有研究在自我报告抑郁症状的主要结局方面均存在较高的检测偏倚风险。
五项试验(n = 575)的随机效应荟萃分析表明,在常规治疗基础上联合心理治疗(与单独常规治疗相比)在短期内(长达六个月)可改善自我报告的抑郁症状(贝克抑郁量表(BDI)上的MD为-4.07分,95%置信区间(CI)为-7.07至-1.07)。将所有六项研究的数据合并用于自我报告的抑郁症状时,效果相似(SMD为-0.40,95%CI为-0.65至-0.14;n = 635)。该证据的质量为中等。在两项研究的患者健康问卷-9量表(PHQ-9)上也观察到了类似的中等质量的获益证据(MD为-4.66,95%CI为-8.72至-0.59;n = 482),在四项研究的汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)上也有类似证据(MD为-3.28,95%CI为-5.71至-0.85;n = 193)。
高质量证据表明,短期内干预组和对照组之间在退出率(可接受性的衡量指标)方面没有差异(RR为0.85,95%CI为0.58至1.24;六项研究;n = 698)。六项研究中缓解的中等质量证据(RR为1.92,95%CI为1.46至2.52;n = 635)和四项研究中反应的低质量证据(RR为1.80,95%CI为1.2至2.7;n = 556)表明,心理治疗作为常规治疗的辅助手段在短期内是有益的。
添加CBT后,低质量证据表明在中期(12个月)(RR为-3.40,95%CI为-7.21至0.40;两项研究;n = 475)和长期(46个月)(RR为-1.90,95%CI为-3.22至-0.58;一项研究;n = 248)BDI量表上的抑郁得分较低。辅助CBT的中等质量证据表明,中期(RR为0.98,95%CI为0.66至1.47;两项研究;n = 549)在可接受性(退出率)方面没有差异,长期退出率较低(RR为0.80,95%CI为0.66至0.97;一项研究;n = 248)。
两项研究报告了在总样本的4.2%中发生的严重不良事件(一例自杀、两例住院和两例抑郁症加重),这些事件仅发生在常规治疗组(干预组无事件发生)。
从英国医疗保健角度(国民健康服务(NHS))进行的一项经济分析(作为纳入研究的一部分进行)表明,辅助CBT在近四年内具有成本效益。
作者结论:中等质量证据表明,在常规治疗(使用抗抑郁药)基础上联合心理治疗对TRD患者的抑郁症状、反应率和缓解率在短期内是有益的。中、长期效果似乎同样有益,尽管大多数证据来自一项大型试验。在常规治疗基础上联合心理治疗似乎与单独常规治疗一样可接受。
需要进一步的证据来证明不同类型心理治疗对TRD患者的有效性。目前没有证据表明对于该患者群体,转而采用心理治疗是否比继续抗抑郁药物治疗方案更有益。填补这一证据空白是研究人员的一个重要目标。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-5-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-3-4
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-7-5
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-8-15
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-1-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-6-8
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-4-4
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-4-24
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-4-23
Aten Primaria. 2025-2-12
Front Pharmacol. 2025-1-27
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-1-8
BMC Psychiatry. 2024-10-28
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019-12-17
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2016-4-21