The switch – real threat or overestimated danger? Antidepressant-associated maniform states in acute treatment of patients with bipolar-I depression in the Munich study

Möller H-J, Bottlender R, Rudolf D, Strauss A, Grunze H. The switch – real threat or overestimated danger? Antidepressant-associated maniform states in acute treatment of patients with bipolar-I depression in the Munich study. Bipolar Disord 2002: 4(Suppl. 1): 115. © Blackwell Munksgaard, 2002     

治疗不敏感性抑郁症的临床特征与治疗转归

目的探讨治疗不敏感性抑郁症的临床特征与治疗转归。方法采用前瞻性的研究方法对入组的147例抑郁症患者进行随访,共124例患者完成整个研究。在治疗前、治疗1、2、4、6周末进行症状评估,评估工具包括汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、简明精神病量表(BPRS)、临床疗效总评量表、副反应量表。结果(1)A、B、C、D4组治疗有效率分别为86.21%、86.96%、50.00%和58.33%,但A组的脱落率较高,达18.69%;(2)治疗敏感性抑郁症患者的症状指标在随访3(7±1)d即有下降;而治疗不敏感性抑郁症患者在随访4(14±1)d才下降,治疗前精神性焦虑症状相对较轻,均分约少1.2分,治疗后遗留较多症状,具体为HAMD的焦虑/躯体化、阻滞、HAMA的精神性焦虑、躯体性焦虑、BPRS的焦虑忧郁、缺乏活力、激活性。结论不敏感性抑郁症患者治疗前精神性焦虑症状较轻,症状改善较慢,治疗后遗留较多抑郁焦虑的症状。     

不同类型抗抑郁剂在双相抑郁治疗中导致转相的回顾性研究

目的比较不同抗抑郁剂在双相抑郁治疗过程中转相率的差异。方法对150例接受抗抑郁剂治疗的双相抑郁患者出现躁狂、轻躁狂、快速循环情况进行调查，并比较不同抗抑郁剂之间的差异。结果150例双相抑郁中，共有41例患者在治疗过程中转相，总发生率（转相率）34％。其中使用双重作用抗抑郁剂（DAA）患者的转相率为29．2％，使用选择性5-羟色胺回吸收抑制剂〈SSRI）的患者为12.7％，DAA与SSRI联合应用者为48．7％，三组间差异有统计学意义（Χ^2=11．87，P〈0．001）。DDA与SSRI联合应用者转相率高于SSRI，差异有统计学意义（Χ^2=16．06，P〈0．001，危险比OR=6．53）；DAA转相率高于SSRI。差异有统计学意义（Χ^2=4.65，P〈0．01，OR=6．53）；DAA与SSRI联合应用者转相率高于DAA（Χ^2=3．49，P〉0.05，OR=2．31）。转相与未转相者相比，心境稳定剂的应用差异有统计学意义（7／41，52／109，Χ^2=11．72，P〈0．001）。结论不同类型抗抑郁荆在双相抑郁治疗中引起的转相率有差异，其中联合使用抗抑郁剂的转相率最高，而心境稳定剂的联合应用有助于预防转相。     

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of risperidone augmentation for patients with difficult-to-treat unipolar, non-psychotic major depression

Objective

Patients (30-50%) with non-psychotic major depression will not respond despite an adequate trial of antidepressant medication. This study evaluated risperidone as an augmenting agent for patients who failed or only partially responded to an adequate trial of an antidepressant medication.

Method

Ninety-seven patients with unipolar non-psychotic major depression who were not responsive to antidepressant monotherapy were randomized to risperidone (0.5-3 mg/day) or placebo augmentation in a four-week, double-blind, placebo controlled treatment trial. The primary outcome measure was remission defined by a score of ?10 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Secondary outcomes measures were the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Clinician Global Impression of Severity scale and the overall satisfaction item of the Quality of Life and Enjoyment Questionnaire.

Results

Subjects in both treatment groups improved significantly over time. The odds of remitting were significantly better for patients in the risperidone vs. placebo arm (OR = 3.33, p = .011). At the end of 4 weeks of treatment 52% of the risperidone augmentation group remitted (MADRS ? 10) compared to 24% of the placebo augmentation group (CMH(1) = 6.48, p = .011), but the two groups were converging. Patients in the risperidone group also reported significantly more improvement in quality-of-life than patients in the placebo group. There were no between-group differences in the number of adverse events reported, however, weight gain was significantly higher in the group receiving risperidone.

Conclusion

Augmentation of an antidepressant with risperidone for patients with difficult-to-treat depression leads to more rapid response and a higher remission rate and better quality-of-life.     

Serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels in patients with major depression: effects of antidepressants

This study tried to investigate the relationships between serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) protein levels and major depressive patients and discuss the effects of antidepressants on the serum BDNF protein levels. A total of 218 participants, including 111 patients with major depression (91 women) and 107 healthy controls (65 women), were recruited in this study. Serum BDNF protein levels were measured using an ELISA kit. Psychiatric diagnoses were made according to DSM-IV criteria. Severity of major depression was assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Using analysis of covariance with age adjustment, there were significantly low serum BDNF protein levels in depressive patients than healthy controls in women (F=7.530, p=0.007), but not in men. Additionally, changes in serum BDNF protein levels were significantly increased in 79 patients taking antidepressants during a period of 4 weeks (t=2.116, p=0.038), especially in 61 women (t=2.542, p=0.014). Age-adjusted ANCOVA revealed no significant differences in serum BDNF protein levels between 58 responders and 21 non-responders (F=0.008, P=0.928). In responders, there were significantly increased changes in serum BDNF protein levels in 44 women (t=2.501, p=0.016), but not in 14 men (t=-0.767, p=0.457). These analytical results suggest that low serum BDNF may play an important role in depressive women and antidepressant treatment significantly increase serum BDNF. However, further studies of larger populations are necessary to confirm these results and further elucidate the effects of different classes of antidepressants on serum BDNF protein levels.     

Treatment of depression in patients with heart disease.

There is a growing body of evidence that depression significantly and adversely affects cardiovascular health. Perhaps the most prominent finding is the documented increase in mortality rate in patients with depression after myocardial infarction. The critical questions of interest to both the clinician and researcher are whether there are safe and effective treatments for depression in patients with heart disease and whether treatment of depression reduces the increased risk of cardiac morbidity and mortality. Though the data are limited and are primarily from open or comparator trials, the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and specific psychotherapies appear to be effective for treatment of depression in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD), and response rates are comparable to those reported in depressed patients without heart disease; however, there has been only one placebo-controlled trial to date, and therefore it is premature to come to definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of antidepressant therapies in this patient population. With respect to safety, the TCAs are associated with documented adverse cardiovascular effects, including increases in heart rate, orthostatic hypotension, and conduction delays. Use of TCAs in patients with IHD carries a proven increased risk of cardiac morbidity and perhaps of mortality as well. The SSRIs appear to be relatively safe and effective treatment for depression in patients with comorbid IHD.     

Continuation phase treatment with bupropion SR effectively decreases the risk for relapse of depression.

BACKGROUND: This was the first controlled continuation phase study (up to 1-year total treatment) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bupropion SR for decreasing the risk for relapse of depression in patients who responded to bupropion SR. METHODS: Patients with recurrent major depression were treated with bupropion SR 300 mg/day during an 8-week open-label phase. Responders (based on Clinical Global Impressions Scale for Improvement of Illness scores) entered a randomized, double-blind phase where they received bupropion SR 300 mg/day or placebo for up to 44 weeks. After randomization, relapse was defined as the point at which the investigator intervened by withdrawing the patient from the study to treat depression. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-three patients were randomized. A statistically significant difference in favor of bupropion SR over placebo was seen in the time to treatment intervention for depression when survival curves were compared (log-rank test, p =.003). Statistically significant separation between bupropion SR and placebo began at double-blind week 12 (p <.05). Adverse events in bupropion SR-treated patients accounted for 9% and 4% of discontinuations from the open-label and double-blind phases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bupropion SR was shown to be effective and well tolerated in decreasing the risk for relapse of depression for up to 44 weeks.     

抑郁障碍病人药物治疗的流行病学调查

目的　了解中国目前抑郁障碍病人药物治疗的处方方式及影响因素。方法　按国家统计局发布的中国 2 0 0 0年人均生产总值 (人均GDP)划分的 5个经济发展等级 ,根据一定的抽样比例选择北京等 10个省市的医院 ,自制调查问卷 ,经预调查和讨论修订 ,于 2 0 0 2年 5月 2 0～ 2 4日进行抑郁障碍药物治疗的流行病学调查。结果　共收集调查住院和门诊抑郁障碍病人 735例。 72 9%的就诊者属于自费病人 ,女性占 6 1 6 %。按使用频率前 10位药物依次为氟西汀 (含进口和国产制剂 )、阿米替林、文拉法新 (包括国产制剂和进口缓释剂 )、多虑平、帕罗西汀、氯丙咪嗪、麦普替林、曲唑酮、丙咪嗪和米氮平。三环类药物 (TCAs)使用频率为 4 1 9% ,五羟色胺再摄取抑制剂 (SSRIs)治疗者占全部病人的 4 4 5 % ,其他新型抗抑郁药占 2 1 6 %。抗抑郁药治疗患者中 ,90 3%的病人接受单一药物治疗 ,合并治疗药物主要是苯二氮 艹卓 类药 (5 3 3% )、抗精神病药 (17 1% )、β 受体阻断剂 (7 1% )和心境稳定剂(4 9% )。影响药物选择的因素主要是患者的症状和经济状况。结论　国内抑郁障碍药物处方方式逐渐以新型抗抑郁药物占主流 ,经济负担和病人的症状表现影响抗抑郁药物的处方方式     

抑郁症患者延误治疗的影响因素分析

目的:探讨抑郁症患者延误治疗的影响因素。方法:以是否有延误治疗的情况将67例住院的抑郁症患者分为延误治疗组(47例)和非延误治疗组(20例);采用自制调查表收集入组者一般及临床资料,并进行分析比较。结果:本组70%患者延误治疗。延误治疗组中,≤高中文化、居住在农村、间断性病程、急性起病、抑郁症家族史、首诊主诉为躯体症状、在综合医院就诊、有自知力、接受抑郁症诊断及有药物治疗意愿的比率与非延误治疗组比较差异有统计学意义(P均0.05);Logistic回归分析显示文化程度、病程、起病形式、家族史、求医方式、自身对疾病的认识、诊断的接受性、是否愿意接受药物治疗进入回归方程,标准回归系数分别为0.34,0.23,0.35,0.26,0.11,0.20,0.36,0.38。结论:抑郁症患者延误治疗的发生率高;高中以下文化程度、连续性病程、急性起病、阴性家族史、在综合医院治疗、无自知力、不愿接受诊断标签和药物治疗可能是延误治疗的因素。     

Psychosocial predictors of depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of depression according to ICD-10 criteria using a self-completed questionnaire and to identify psychosocial predictors of depression at discharge in patients with acute coronary syndrome. METHOD: A total of 899 patients with acute coronary syndrome completed the Major Depression Inventory at discharge and a questionnaire regarding previous depression and family history of depression. Information concerning civil status was obtained from the Civil Person Registry. RESULTS: Ninety patients (10%) were depressed according to ICD-10 criteria at discharge with 7.2% having a moderate to severe depression at discharge. Women were significantly more frequently and severely depressed than men. Patients with and without depression reported primarily somatic symptoms of depression. Cardiovascular risk factors or treatment did not differ between patients with and without depression. Previous depression (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.4-6.0 adjusted) and female gender (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5-4.3 adjusted) predicted depression at discharge in a logistic regression model. CONCLUSION: Somatic symptoms of depression are prevalent in patients with acute coronary syndrome. The use of self-completed non-diagnostic questionnaires assessing symptoms of depression therefore is cautioned as patients may wrongly be identified as depressed. In patients with acute coronary syndrome depression is predicted by well-known psychosocial risk factors.     

西酞普兰治疗老年期抑郁症疗效观察

目的：探讨西酞普兰治疗老年期抑郁症的临床疗效及安全性.方法：将60例老年期抑郁症患者随机分为西酞普兰组及阿米替林组（各30例）.西酞普兰治疗剂量为20～40 mg/d,阿米替林为100～250 mg/d.疗程6周.疗效评定采用Hamilton抑郁量表（HAMD）,安全性评价应用副反应量表（TESS）及实验室检查.结果：西酞普兰组显效率为77%,有效率为92%,与阿米替林组的70%及90%相当;西酞普兰组不良反应较阿米替林组少且轻微.结论：西酞普兰与阿米替林对老年期抑郁症均有较好的疗效,但西酞普兰具有服用简便,不良反应轻等优点.     

Status of minor depression or dysthymia in primary care following a randomized controlled treatment

This report describes the rates of recovery and remission from minor depression or dysthymia in primary care patients three months after completing a randomized controlled treatment trial. The subjects were primary care patients who received ≥4 treatment sessions with Problem-Solving Treatment, paroxetine, or placebo and who completed an independent assessment 3 months after the study (201 with minor depression, 229 with dysthymia). The 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD), semistructured questions about postintervention depression treatments, and baseline medical comorbidity, neuroticism, and social function were the primary measures. For minor depression 76% and for dysthymia 68% of subjects who were in remission at the end of the 11-week treatment trial were recovered (HAMD ≤6) three months after the treatment trial. Of patients who were not in remission at 11 weeks, for minor depression 37% and for dysthymia 31% went on to achieve remission at 25 weeks. The majority of patients chose not to use antidepressants or psychotherapy after the trial. Patients with minor depression that had greater baseline social function and lower neuroticism scores were more likely to be recovered. For patients with minor depression, these findings suggest a need for some matching of continuation and maintenance treatment to patient characteristics rather than uniform, automatic treatment recommendations. Because of the chronic, relapsing nature of dysthymia, practical improvements in encouraging effective continuation and maintenance phases of treatment are indicated.     

The use of referenced-EEG (rEEG) in assisting medication selection for the treatment of depression

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of rEEG^®-guided pharmacotherapy for the treatment of depression in those circumstances where rEEG and STAR*D provided different recommendations.

Materials and methods

This was a randomized, single-blind, parallel group, 12 center, US study of rEEG-guided pharmacotherapy vs. the most effective treatment regimens reported in the NIH sponsored STAR*D study. Relatively treatment-resistant subjects ≥18 years who failed one or more antidepressants were required to have a QIDS-16-SR score ≥13 and a MADRS score ≥26 at baseline. All subjects underwent a washout of all current medications (with some protocol-specified exceptions) for at least five half-lives before receiving a QEEG and rEEG report. Subjects randomized to rEEG were assigned a regimen based on the rEEG report. Control subjects who had failed only SSRI’s in their current episode were randomized to receive venlafaxine XR. Control subjects who had failed antidepressants from ≥2 classes of antidepressants were randomized to receive a regimen from Steps 2-4 of the STAR*D study. Treatment lasted 12 weeks. The primary outcome measures were change from baseline for self-rated QIDS-SR16 and Q-LES-Q-SF.

Results

A total of 114 subjects were randomized and 89 subjects were evaluable. rEEG-guided pharmacotherapy exhibited significantly greater improvement for both primary endpoints, QIDS-SR16 (−6.8 vs. −4.5, p < 0.0002) and Q-LES-Q-SF (18.0 vs. 8.9, p < 0.0002) compared to control, respectively, as well as statistical superiority in 9 out of 12 secondary endpoints.

Conclusions

These results warrant additional studies to determine the role of rEEG-guided psychopharmacology in the treatment of depression. If these results were confirmed, rEEG-guided pharmacotherapy would represent an easy, relatively inexpensive, predictive, objective office procedure that builds upon clinical judgment to guide antidepressant medication choice.     

Physician speciality and pain reduction in patients with depressive symptoms under treatment with venlafaxine

ObjectivesExcessive pain perception may lead to unnecessary diagnostic testing or invasive procedures resulting in iatrogenic complications and prolonged disability. Naturalistic studies on patients with chronic pain and depressive symptoms investigating the impact of medical speciality on treatment outcome in a primary care setting are lacking.MethodsIn this observational study, we examined whether the magnitude of pain reduction in 444 patients with depressive symptomatology under venlafaxine would relate differently to the medical speciality of the 122 treating physicians, namely psychiatrists (n = 110 patients), general practitioners (n = 236 patients), and internists (n = 98 patients).ResultsIndependent of age, gender, patient's region of origin, comorbidity, severity and duration of pain, and depressive symptoms at study entry, patients seemed to benefit significantly less in terms of pain reduction (p < 0.001) and of reduction in severity of depressive symptomatology by psychiatrists as compared to general practitioners (p < 0.019) and internists (p < 0.002).ConclusionsThe findings suggest that patients referred to psychiatrists are more difficult to treat than those referred to general practitioners and internists, and might not have been adequately prepared for psychiatric interventions. A supporting cooperation and networking between psychiatrists and primary care physicians may contribute to an integrated treatment concept and therefore, may lead to a better outcome in this challenging patient group.     

卒中后抑郁患者药物及心理治疗

目的探讨抗抑郁药物和心理治疗对卒中后抑郁(PSD)及神经功能康复的影响。方法对1999~2001年神经内科150例脑卒中患者中符合PSD54例随机分为两组:心理治疗联合黛力新组和黛力新治疗组,于治疗前和治疗4周后分别测定HAMD、日常生活能力BI。结果治疗后两组抑郁焦虑情绪明显改善(P<0.01),日常生活能力明显提高(P<0.05),并且心理治疗联合黛力新组比单用黛力新治疗更有效(P<0.05)。结论心理治疗联合黛力新治疗PSD,不仅能显著改善患者的抑郁状态,而且能促进神经功能的康复,改善日常生活能力。     

帕罗西汀治疗脑卒中后抑郁症疗效研究

目的探讨帕罗西汀对卒中后抑郁、焦虑患者日常生活能力和神经功能康复的影响。方法采用抑郁自评量表（SDS）、焦虑自评量表（SAS）对272例脑卒中患者进行抑郁、焦虑状态评定,其中患有卒中后抑郁合并焦虑的81例患者分别接受帕罗西汀治疗、帕罗西汀联合心理干预治疗以及不干预。采用斯堪的那维亚脑卒中量表（SSS）、Barthel指数（BI）、汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）评测治疗前后的疗效。结果急性脑卒中病人卒中后抑郁并焦虑患病率为2978%,抑郁与焦虑共病率为65.85%;治疗组I和治疗组ⅡHAMD、HAMA、SSS评分减少和BI评分增加与对照组比较均有显著性差异（P〈0.01）。结论卒中后抑郁、焦虑病人给予帕罗西汀治疗能提高患者神经功能康复程度和生活能力恢复。     

Long term treatment with oxaprotiline in patients with major depression

1. 1) Four hundred thirty-seven patients with depressive illness were treated for up to 11 months with oxaprotiline (Ba-49802B)in a continuation study.

2. 2) Results of this study suggest that oxaprotiline continued to be effective in alleviating depressive symptoms.

3. 3) Additionally, evaluation of safety parameters failed to reveal any significant risk to patients who were treated with oxaprotiline over this extended period of time.

路优泰与氟西汀治疗抑郁症对照研究

目的:探讨路优泰对抑郁症患者的疗效及安全性. 方法:将40例抑郁症患者随机分为路优泰组和氟西汀组,治疗6周.采用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)和副反应量表(TESS)评定疗效和不良反应. 结果:路优泰有效率为85%,对抑郁及伴随的焦虑症状作用明显,不良反应少而轻. 结论:路优泰抗抑郁疗效肯定,与氟西汀相当,安全性好.