...
首页> 外文期刊>Health technology assessment: HTA >A pragmatic randomised controlled trial to compare antidepressants with a community-based psychosocial intervention for the treatment of women with postnatal depression: the RESPOND trial.
【24h】

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial to compare antidepressants with a community-based psychosocial intervention for the treatment of women with postnatal depression: the RESPOND trial.

机译:一项实用的随机对照试验,用于比较抗抑郁药与基于社区的社会心理干预对产后抑郁症妇女的治疗:RESPOND试验。

获取原文
           

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical effectiveness at 4 weeks of antidepressant therapy for mothers with postnatal depression (PND) compared with general supportive care; to compare outcome at 18 weeks of those randomised to antidepressant therapy with those randomised to listening visits as the first intervention (both groups were to be allowed to receive the alternative intervention after 4 weeks if the woman or her doctor so decided); and to assess acceptability of antidepressants and listening visits to users and health professionals. DESIGN: A pragmatic two-arm individually randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from 77 general practices: 21 in Bristol, 21 in south London and 35 in Manchester. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 254 women who fulfilled International Classification of Diseases version 10 criteria for major depression in the first 6 postnatal months were recruited and randomised. INTERVENTIONS: Women were randomised to receive either an antidepressant, usually a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor prescribed by their general practitioner (GP), or non-directive counselling (listening visits) from a specially trained research health visitor (HV). The trial was designed to compare antidepressants with general supportive care for the first 4 weeks, after which women allocated to listening visits commenced their sessions. It allowed for women to receive the alternative intervention if they had not responded to their allocated intervention or wished to change to, or add in, the alternative intervention at any time after 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The duration of the trial was 18 weeks. Primary outcome, measured at 4 weeks and 18 weeks post randomisation, was the proportion of women improved on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), that is scoring < 13. Secondary outcomes were the EPDS measured as a continuous variable at 4 and 18 weeks, and scores on various other questionnaires. RESULTS: At 4 weeks, women were more than twice as likely to have improved if they had been randomised to antidepressants compared with listening visits, which started after the 4-week follow-up, i.e. after 4 weeks of general supportive care [primary intention-to-treat (ITT), 45% versus 20%; odds ratio (OR) 3.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8 to 6.5, p < 0.001]. Explanatory analyses emphasised these findings. At 18 weeks, ITT analysis revealed that the proportion of women improving was 11% greater in the antidepressant group, but logistic regression analysis showed no clear benefit for one group over the other [62% versus 51%, OR 1.5 (95% CI 0.8 to 2.6), p = 0.19]. Overall, there was a difference between the groups in favour of the antidepressant group of about 25 percentage points at 4 weeks, which reduced at 18 weeks. No statistical support existed for a benefit of antidepressants at 18 weeks, but 95% CIs could not rule out a clinically important benefit. It was difficult for GPs not to prescribe antidepressants to women randomised to listening visits after the initial 4 weeks, so many women received both interventions in both groups by 18 weeks and consequently power was reduced. Qualitative interviews with women revealed a preference for listening visits but an acceptance that antidepressants might be necessary. They wished to be reassured that their GP and HV were offering continuity of care focusing on their particular set of circumstances. Interviews with GPs and HVs revealed lack of collaboration in managing care for women with PND; neither professional group was willing to assume responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: At 4 weeks, antidepressants were significantly superior to general supportive care. Trial design meant that by 18 weeks many of the women initially randomised to listening visits were also receiving antidepressants, and more vice versa. The lack of evidence for differences at 18 weeks is likely to reflect a combination of reduced power and the considerable degree of switching across the two i
机译:目的:评估与一般支持治疗相比,产后抑郁症(PND)母亲在接受抗抑郁治疗4周时的临床疗效;将随机接受抗抑郁治疗的患者在第18周的治疗结果与随机接受听力治疗的患者作为第一种干预措施的治疗结果进行比较(如果妇女或医生如此决定,则允许两组在4周后接受替代治疗);并评估抗抑郁药的可接受性以及对使用者和保健专业人员的探访。设计:实用的两臂独立随机对照试验。地点:参与者来自77种常规做法:布里斯托尔21名,伦敦南部21名和曼彻斯特35名。参与者:总共254名在出生后前6个月内符合国际疾病分类第10版的重度抑郁症标准的妇女被随机分配。干预措施:妇女被随机分配接受抗抑郁药(通常由其全科医生(GP)开具的选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂)或接受经过专门培训的研究健康访问者(HV)的非指导性咨询(听诊)。该试验旨在比较头4周的抗抑郁药与一般支持治疗之间的差异,此后,分配给听力访视的妇女开始接受治疗。如果妇女对分配的干预措施没有反应或希望在4周后的任何时间更改或增加替代干预措施,则可以接受替代干预措施。主要观察指标:试验时间为18周。主要结果是在随机分组后4周和18周测量的,是在爱丁堡产后抑郁量表(EPDS)上得到改善的妇女比例,得分<13。次要结果是在4周和18周以连续变量测量的EPDS。 ,以及其他各种调查问卷的得分。结果:在第4周进行随访后,即在4周的一般支持治疗后[4],如果将妇女随机分配给抗抑郁药,则其接受抗抑郁药治疗的可能性要比接受听力访视的患者提高两倍以上。到治疗(ITT),分别为45%和20%;比值比(OR)3.4,95%置信区间(CI)1.8至6.5,p <0.001]。解释性分析强调了这些发现。 ITT分析显示,在18周时,抗抑郁药组中女性改善的比例增加了11%,但逻辑回归分析显示,一组没有明显优于另一组的益处[62%比51%,或1.5(95%CI 0.8至2.6),p = 0.19]。总体而言,两组之间在抗抑郁药组方面的差异在第4周时约为25个百分点,而在第18周时有所降低。 18周时尚无抗抑郁药获益的统计学支持,但95%的CI不能排除临床上重要的获益。全科医生很难在开始的4周后不给随机分配给听力访视的妇女开抗抑郁药,因此,在18周时,两组中的许多妇女都接受了两种干预措施,因此功率降低了。对妇女的定性访谈显示,他们更喜欢听诊,但也接受抗抑郁药的必要性。他们希望可以放心,他们的GP和HV会根据他们的特定情况提供连续的护理。对全科医生和HV的访谈显示,在管理PND妇女的护理方面缺乏合作。两个专业团体都不愿意承担责任。结论:第4周,抗抑郁药明显优于一般支持治疗。试验设计意味着到18周时,许多最初随机安排进行听诊的妇女也正在接受抗抑郁药治疗,反之亦然。缺乏18周差异的证据可能反映出功率降低和两者之间相当大的切换程度

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号