Schrag Anette, Carroll Camille, Lewis Glyn, Serfaty Marc, Duncan Gordon, Molloy Sophie, Whipps John, McLennan Blair, Weng Jing Yi Jessica, Hunter Rachael M, Clarke Caroline S, Freemantle Nicholas, Embleton-Thirsk Andrew
Department of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, London, UK.
Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2025 Nov;29(57):1-78. doi: 10.3310/HFDO7575.
There is insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of different antidepressants in Parkinson's disease. This trial was commissioned to provide robust evidence regarding the effectiveness of a tricyclic and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor on depression in people with Parkinson's disease.
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the tricyclic nortriptyline and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor escitalopram in addition to standard psychological care in the National Health Service in the treatment of depression in Parkinson's disease.
Forty-seven-month, multisite, three-arm, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, with an internal pilot phase. Four hundred and eight patients with a 1 : 1 : 1 randomisation between placebo, nortriptyline and escitalopram. The pilot study aimed to recruit 46 participants in the first 6 months from 10 sites to decide whether the trial is feasible.
Participants were treated with nortriptyline (target dose 100 mg in patients 65 and under, or 50 mg in patients over 65 or those with hepatic impairment), escitalopram (target dose 20 mg in patients 65 and under, or 10 mg in patients over 65 or those with hepatic impairment) or placebo, in addition to available standard psychological care.
The primary outcome measure was the Beck Depression Inventory-II at 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included clinician- and patient-reported outcomes, with safety summaries.
Fifty-two patients were recruited and randomised to receive either nortriptyline, escitalopram, or a placebo-matched tablet. This was effectively the internal pilot period, with the trial being truncated at this point. There was a reduction in Beck Depression Inventory-II scores between baseline to week 8 in all arms. In the placebo arm, this was from a mean of 24.3 (SD 7.8) at baseline to 15.7 (SD 5.8) at week 8, in the nortriptyline arm from 20.5 (SD 3.8) to 12.6 (SD 8.1), and in the escitalopram arm from 23.3 (SD 8.0) to 14.6 (SD 8.4). The reduction in Beck Depression Inventory-II scores was not significantly different between either of the two active arms and the placebo arm, with a mean change of -3.1 (95% confidence interval -8.66 to 2.53, = 0.28) in the nortriptyline versus placebo comparison, and a mean change of -0.7 (-6.11 to 4.70, = 0.80) in the escitalopram versus placebo comparison. There was however a statistically significant difference in reduction of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items scores between the nortriptyline and the placebo arm ( = 0.01) but not the escitalopram compared to the placebo arm ( = 0.33). There were no differences in adverse events, Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale scores or Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores. Descriptive analysis of health economic outcomes suggested no significant differences across time periods or groups.
This trial was limited by low number of patients with depression in Parkinson's disease who could be recruited.
Future trials should concentrate on one rather than two medications to reduce the number of ineligible patients as well as the sample size. Alternatively, a three-arm comparison with a compound not currently available but with potential added benefit may also increase recruitment rate.
The ADepT-PD trial was terminated at the end of the pilot phase due to low recruitment. Only limited conclusions can be drawn as to the efficacy and safety of the active treatments.
This trial is registered as NCT03652870.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/145/01) and is published in full in ; Vol. 29, No. 57. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
关于不同抗抑郁药治疗帕金森病的有效性,证据不足。本试验旨在提供有力证据,证明三环类药物和选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂对帕金森病患者抑郁症的疗效。
评估在英国国家医疗服务体系中,除标准心理护理外,三环类去甲替林和选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂艾司西酞普兰治疗帕金森病抑郁症的临床疗效和成本效益。
为期47个月的多中心、三臂、安慰剂对照、双盲随机对照试验,设有内部预试验阶段。408例患者按1∶1∶1随机分为安慰剂组、去甲替林组和艾司西酞普兰组。预试验旨在在6个月内从10个地点招募46名参与者,以确定试验是否可行。
参与者除接受现有的标准心理护理外,还接受去甲替林(65岁及以下患者目标剂量为100mg,65岁以上患者或肝功能损害患者目标剂量为50mg)、艾司西酞普兰(65岁及以下患者目标剂量为20mg,65岁以上患者或肝功能损害患者目标剂量为10mg)或安慰剂治疗。
主要结局指标为8周时的贝克抑郁量表第二版(BDI-II)。次要结局指标包括临床医生和患者报告的结局指标,并进行安全性总结。
招募了52例患者并随机分组,分别接受去甲替林、艾司西酞普兰或安慰剂对照片治疗。这实际上是内部预试验阶段,试验在此阶段被截断。所有组从基线到第8周时BDI-II评分均有所降低。安慰剂组从基线时的平均24.3(标准差7.8)降至第8周时的15.7(标准差5.8),去甲替林组从20.5(标准差3.8)降至12.6(标准差8.1),艾司西酞普兰组从23.3(标准差8.0)降至14.6(标准差8.4)。两个活性药物组与安慰剂组之间BDI-II评分的降低无显著差异,去甲替林与安慰剂比较的平均变化为-3.1(95%置信区间-8.66至2.53,P=0.28),艾司西酞普兰与安慰剂比较的平均变化为-0.7(-6.11至4.70,P=0.80)。然而,去甲替林组与安慰剂组在患者健康问卷9项评分的降低方面存在统计学显著差异(P=0.01),而艾司西酞普兰组与安慰剂组相比无差异(P=0.33)。不良事件、运动障碍协会统一帕金森病评定量表评分或蒙特利尔认知评估评分均无差异。健康经济结局的描述性分析表明,各时间段或组间无显著差异。
本试验受帕金森病抑郁症患者招募数量少的限制。
未来试验应专注于一种而非两种药物,以减少不符合条件的患者数量和样本量。或者,与目前尚无但可能有额外益处的化合物进行三臂比较,也可能提高招募率。
由于招募率低,ADepT-PD试验在预试验阶段结束时终止。关于活性治疗的疗效和安全性,只能得出有限的结论。
本试验注册为NCT03652870。
本研究由英国国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估项目资助(NIHR资助编号:16/145/01),全文发表于《》第29卷,第57期。更多资助信息请见NIHR资助与奖项网站。