Wang Yun, Liu Xiaohua, Peng Daihui, Wu Yan, Su Yun'ai, Xu Jia, Ma Xiancang, Li Yi, Shi Jianfei, Cheng Xiaojing, Rong Han, Fang Yiru
Division of Mood Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Department of Psychiatry, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2022 Jan 4;18:11-18. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S320091. eCollection 2022.
Despite the best treatments, about 20% of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) receiving drugs and psychological intervention show little or no improvement. There is no trial comparing different treatment methods in patients with anxiety/somatic subtype MDD.
To compare the efficacy and safety of various treatments in patients with anxiety/somatic subtype MDD.
This was a preliminary multicenter randomized controlled trial at eight participating hospitals in China (09/2016-06/2019) (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT03219008). The patients were randomized to mirtazapine/SNRIs, mirtazapine/SNRIs+cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), mirtazapine+SNRIs, or mirtazapine+SNRIs+physical therapies (modified electroconvulsive treatment or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation). The primary endpoint was the 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD-17). The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR) and Quality of Life (QOL)-6 were the secondary endpoints. The adverse events (AEs) were monitored. The patients were assessed at baseline (0 weeks), and at the end of the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 12th week during treatment.
Finally, 107 patients were included: mirtazapine/SNRIs (n=36), mirtazapine/SNRIs+CBT (n=28), mirtazapine+SNRIs (n=29), and mirtazapine+SNRIs+physical therapies (n=14). The 17-HDRS and QIDS-SR scores decreased in all four groups, and the QOL-6 scores increased. There were no differences in the 17-HDRS (P=0.099), QIDS-SR (P=0.407), and QOL-6 (P=0.485) scores among the four groups. There were no differences in the occurrence of AEs among the four groups (P=0.942).
This preliminary trial suggests that all four interventions (mirtazapine/SNRIs, mirtazapine/SNRIs+CBT, mirtazapine+SNRIs, or mirtazapine+SNRIs+physical therapies) achieved similar response and remission rates in patients with anxiety/somatic subtype MDD. The safety profile was manageable.
尽管采用了最佳治疗方法,但约20%接受药物和心理干预的重度抑郁症(MDD)患者改善甚微或没有改善。尚无试验比较焦虑/躯体亚型MDD患者的不同治疗方法。
比较各种治疗方法对焦虑/躯体亚型MDD患者的疗效和安全性。
这是一项在中国8家参与医院进行的初步多中心随机对照试验(2016年9月 - 2019年6月)(ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT03219008)。患者被随机分为米氮平/5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SNRIs)组、米氮平/5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂+认知行为疗法(CBT)组、米氮平+5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂组或米氮平+5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂+物理治疗(改良电休克治疗或重复经颅磁刺激)组。主要终点是17项汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD - 17)。抑郁症状快速自评量表(QIDS - SR)和生活质量量表(QOL) - 6为次要终点。监测不良事件(AE)。在基线(0周)以及治疗期间第2、4、6、8和12周结束时对患者进行评估。
最终纳入107例患者:米氮平/5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂组(n = 36)、米氮平/5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂+CBT组(n = 28)、米氮平+5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂组(n = 29)和米氮平+5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂+物理治疗组(n = 14)。四组患者的17-HDRS和QIDS - SR评分均降低,QOL - 6评分升高。四组之间的17-HDRS(P = 0.099)、QIDS - SR(P = 0.407)和QOL - 6(P = 0.485)评分无差异。四组之间不良事件的发生率无差异(P = 0.942)。
这项初步试验表明,所有四种干预措施(米氮平/5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂、米氮平/5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂+CBT、米氮平+5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂或米氮平+5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂+物理治疗)在焦虑/躯体亚型MDD患者中达到了相似的反应率和缓解率。安全性状况可控。