抗抑郁药治疗难治性抑郁症的相对有效性:随机对照试验的系统评价和网状Meta分析

Relative effectiveness of antidepressant treatments in treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

作者信息

Saelens Johan, Gramser Anna, Watzal Victoria, Zarate Carlos A, Lanzenberger Rupert, Kraus Christoph

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Comprehensive Center for Clinical Neurosciences and Mental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

出版信息

Neuropsychopharmacology. 2025 May;50(6):913-919. doi: 10.1038/s41386-024-02044-5. Epub 2024 Dec 30.

Abstract

This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) sought to compare different antidepressant treatments for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in order to facilitate evidence-based choices. A literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception until April 13th, 2023 identified randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with depression who had not responded to at least two antidepressant trials; all RCTs had ≥10 participants per study arm, and participants with bipolar or psychotic depression were excluded. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool-2 was used to assess study quality. Response rate was the primary outcome measure. Odds ratios (ORs) using a random effects NMA are reported. From 8234 records, 69 RCTs were included in this analysis, encompassing 10,285 participants (5662 F/4623 M) and 25 separate treatments. Six of the 25 treatments demonstrated a higher response rate versus placebo or sham treatment: electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), minocycline, theta-burst stimulation (TBS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), ketamine, and aripiprazole. ORs ranged from 1.9 (95%CI = [1.25; 2.91]) for aripiprazole to 12.86 (95%CI = [4.07; 40.63]) for ECT. Moderate heterogeneity of the model was observed (I = 47.3% (95%CI [26.8-62%]). Of the included studies, 12.5% were rated as having high risk of bias, 28.13% as having low risk, and 59.38% as showing some concerns. Several effective treatments for TRD showed robust treatment effects across outcomes (ECT, TBS, rTMS, and ketamine), and others showed promising results for some, but not all, outcomes (minocycline, aripiprazole). These findings may help guide evidence-based treatment choices for TRD. Study Registration: PROSPERO (#CRD42023420584).

摘要

本系统评价和网状Meta分析(NMA)旨在比较治疗难治性抑郁症(TRD)的不同抗抑郁治疗方法,以促进基于证据的选择。对PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和Embase从创刊至2023年4月13日进行文献检索,确定了对至少两次抗抑郁试验无反应的成年抑郁症患者的随机对照试验(RCT);所有RCT每个研究组至少有10名参与者,排除双相或精神病性抑郁症患者。采用Cochrane偏倚风险工具-2评估研究质量。缓解率是主要结局指标。报告了使用随机效应NMA的比值比(OR)。从8234条记录中,69项RCT纳入本分析,涵盖10285名参与者(5662名女性/4623名男性)和25种不同治疗方法。25种治疗方法中有6种与安慰剂或假治疗相比显示出更高的缓解率:电休克治疗(ECT)、米诺环素、theta爆发刺激(TBS)、重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)、氯胺酮和阿立哌唑。OR范围从阿立哌唑的1.9(95%CI = [1.25;2.91])到ECT的12.86(95%CI = [4.07;40.63])。观察到模型存在中度异质性(I = 47.3%(95%CI [26.8 - 62%])。纳入的研究中,12.5%被评为高偏倚风险,28.13%为低偏倚风险,59.38%存在一些问题。几种治疗TRD的有效治疗方法在各结局中均显示出较强的治疗效果(ECT、TBS、rTMS和氯胺酮),其他方法在部分而非所有结局中显示出有前景的结果(米诺环素、阿立哌唑)。这些发现可能有助于指导TRD基于证据的治疗选择。研究注册号:PROSPERO(#CRD42023420584)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c921/12032262/bf90b0676f7d/41386_2024_2044_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索