Crowe Marie, Porter Richard, Inder Maree, Carlyle Dave, Luty Suzanne, Lacey Cameron, Frampton Christopher
Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Am J Psychother. 2020 Sep 1;73(3):107-114. doi: 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20190035. Epub 2020 Apr 20.
This study compared relapse rates at 18 months among patients with bipolar disorder who, after discharge from publicly funded mental health services, received either adjunctive interpersonal and social rhythm therapy (IPSRT) or treatment as usual (general practice medical care).
Patients diagnosed as having a bipolar I or II disorder who had been discharged from publicly funded mental health services in New Zealand during the previous 3 months were randomly assigned to 18 months of IPSRT or to treatment as usual. The primary outcome measure was the Life Interval Follow-Up Evaluation (LIFE) completed at weeks 26, 52, and 78 of treatment. Secondary measures were scores on the Social Adjustment Scale (SAS) and the Quality of Life-Bipolar Disorder Scale (QoL-BD) and readmission to mental health services.
The sample consisted of 88 patients. In this intention-to-treat analysis, no significant differences were observed in rates of mood episodes between the groups (odds ratio=0.93, 95% confidence interval=0.37-2.17, p=0.86). A statistically significant difference was seen between the intervention and treatment-as-usual groups in scores on the SAS (effect size=0.5) but not on the QoL-BD. A significantly lower readmission rate was observed among the intervention group.
This pragmatic clinical effectiveness trial found that a combination of IPSRT and medication management over 18 months did not significantly improve mood relapse but did improve patient functioning.
本研究比较了双相情感障碍患者在从公共资助的心理健康服务机构出院后,接受辅助性人际与社会节律疗法(IPSRT)或常规治疗(全科医疗护理)18个月后的复发率。
在过去3个月内从新西兰公共资助的心理健康服务机构出院、被诊断为双相I型或II型障碍的患者被随机分配接受18个月的IPSRT或常规治疗。主要结局指标是在治疗第26、52和78周完成的生活间隔随访评估(LIFE)。次要指标是社会适应量表(SAS)和双相情感障碍生活质量量表(QoL-BD)的得分以及再次入住心理健康服务机构的情况。
样本包括88名患者。在这项意向性分析中,两组之间的情绪发作率没有显著差异(优势比=0.93,95%置信区间=0.37-2.17,p=0.86)。干预组和常规治疗组在SAS得分上存在统计学显著差异(效应量=0.5),但在QoL-BD得分上没有差异。干预组的再次入院率显著较低。
这项务实的临床疗效试验发现,18个月的IPSRT与药物管理相结合并没有显著改善情绪复发,但确实改善了患者的功能。