Post-Doctoral Research Associate,Department of Psychological Medicine,Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,King's College London,UK.
Senior Lecturer in Biostatistics,Department of Biostatistics,Institute of Psychiatry,Psychology and Neuroscience,King's College London,UK.
Br J Psychiatry. 2019 Jan;214(1):42-51. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2018.233. Epub 2018 Nov 20.
Depression is considered to have the highest disability burden of all conditions. Although treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a key contributor to that burden, there is little understanding of the best treatment approaches for it and specifically the effectiveness of available augmentation approaches.AimsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to search and quantify the evidence of psychological and pharmacological augmentation interventions for TRD.
Participants with TRD (defined as insufficient response to at least two antidepressants) were randomised to at least one augmentation treatment in the trial. Pre-post analysis assessed treatment effectiveness, providing an effect size (ES) independent of comparator interventions.
Of 28 trials, 3 investigated psychological treatments and 25 examined pharmacological interventions. Pre-post analyses demonstrated N-methyl-d-aspartate-targeting drugs to have the highest ES (ES = 1.48, 95% CI 1.25-1.71). Other than aripiprazole (four studies, ES = 1.33, 95% CI 1.23-1.44) and lithium (three studies, ES = 1.00, 95% CI 0.81-1.20), treatments were each investigated in less than three studies. Overall, pharmacological (ES = 1.19, 95% CI 1.80-1.30) and psychological (ES = 1.43, 95% CI 0.50-2.36) therapies yielded higher ESs than pill placebo (ES = 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.91) and psychological control (ES = 0.94, 95% CI 0.36-1.52).
Despite being used widely in clinical practice, the evidence for augmentation treatments in TRD is sparse. Although pre-post meta-analyses are limited by the absence of direct comparison, this work finds promising evidence across treatment modalities.Declaration of interestIn the past 3 years, A.H.Y. received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly and Sunovion; honoraria for consulting from Allergan, Livanova and Lundbeck, Sunovion and Janssen; and research grant support from Janssen. In the past 3 years, A.J.C. received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca and Lundbeck; honoraria for consulting with Allergan, Janssen, Livanova, Lundbeck and Sandoz; support for conference attendance from Janssen; and research grant support from Lundbeck. B.B. has recently been (soon to be) on the speakers/advisory board for Hexal, Lilly, Lundbeck, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Servier. No other conflicts of interest.
抑郁症被认为是所有疾病中致残负担最高的疾病。尽管治疗抵抗性抑郁症(TRD)是导致这种负担的一个关键因素,但对于它的最佳治疗方法,尤其是现有的增效方法的有效性,人们的了解甚少。
我们进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以搜索和量化 TRD 的心理和药理学增效干预措施的证据。
在试验中,将 TRD(定义为对至少两种抗抑郁药反应不足)的参与者随机分配至至少一种增效治疗。前后测分析评估了治疗效果,提供了与对照干预无关的效应大小(ES)。
在 28 项试验中,有 3 项研究了心理治疗,有 25 项研究了药物干预。前后测分析表明,N-甲基-D-天冬氨酸靶向药物具有最高的 ES(ES=1.48,95%CI 1.25-1.71)。除了阿立哌唑(4 项研究,ES=1.33,95%CI 1.23-1.44)和锂(3 项研究,ES=1.00,95%CI 0.81-1.20)外,每种治疗方法的研究都少于 3 项。总的来说,药物(ES=1.19,95%CI 1.80-1.30)和心理(ES=1.43,95%CI 0.50-2.36)疗法的 ES 高于药丸安慰剂(ES=0.78,95%CI 0.66-0.91)和心理对照(ES=0.94,95%CI 0.36-1.52)。
尽管在临床实践中广泛应用,但 TRD 增效治疗的证据仍然很少。尽管前后测荟萃分析受到缺乏直接比较的限制,但这项工作在各种治疗模式中都发现了有希望的证据。
在过去 3 年中,A.H.Y. 因在阿斯利康、礼来、Lundbeck 和 Sunovion 发表演讲而获得酬金;因在 Allergan、Livanova 和 Lundbeck、Sunovion 和 Janssen 咨询而获得酬金;因 Janssen 获得研究资助。在过去 3 年中,A.J.C. 因在阿斯利康和 Lundbeck 发表演讲而获得酬金;因与 Allergan、Janssen、Livanova、Lundbeck 和 Sandoz 咨询而获得酬金;因参加 Janssen 会议而获得资助;因 Lundbeck 获得研究资助。B.B. 最近(即将)在 Hexal、Lilly、Lundbeck、Mundipharma、Pfizer 和 Servier 担任演讲者/顾问委员会成员。无其他利益冲突。