Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University of Krems, Krems, Austria, and RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (G.G.).
Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University of Krems, Krems, Austria (A.D., A.C., A.T., E.P., I.K., G.W.).
Ann Intern Med. 2023 Feb;176(2):196-211. doi: 10.7326/M22-1845. Epub 2023 Jan 24.
Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD).
To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants.
English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research.
2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration.
Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest.
65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously.
Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence.
Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration.
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020204703).
初级保健患者和临床医生可能更愿意选择第二代抗抑郁药以外的方案来治疗重度抑郁症(MDD)。
比较非药物治疗与第二代抗抑郁药作为急性 MDD 一线治疗的益处和危害,并比较对初始抗抑郁药治疗未缓解的患者的二线治疗策略。
从 1990 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 8 月 8 日的几个电子数据库、试验注册处、灰色文献数据库和参考文献中检索英文文献,以确定未发表的研究。
2 名调查员独立选择了至少 6 周疗程的随机试验。
审查员提取了关于研究设计和实施、参与者、干预措施和结果的信息。他们对研究的偏倚风险和感兴趣结局的证据确定性进行了双重评估。
65 项随机试验符合纳入标准;未发现非随机研究的合格数据。荟萃分析和网络荟萃分析表明,大多数非药物治疗和抗抑郁药作为一线治疗的效果相似。与大多数其他治疗方法相比,抗抑郁药因不良反应而停药的风险更高。对于二线治疗,不同的转换和增效策略提供了相似的症状缓解。大多数比较的证据确定性较低;结论应谨慎解释。
许多研究存在方法学上的局限性或剂量不均等;发表偏倚可能影响了一些比较。在某些情况下,由于证据不足,无法得出结论。
尽管一线和二线 MDD 治疗的益处似乎相似,但大多数比较的证据确定性较低。临床医生和患者应关注最可靠证据的选择,并考虑不良反应谱和患者偏好。
美国医师学院。(PROSPERO:CRD42020204703)。