抗抑郁药是否比安慰剂更有效?

O. Vinař
{"title":"抗抑郁药是否比安慰剂更有效?","authors":"O. Vinař","doi":"10.1017/S146114570100267X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The message that assignment to placebo does not increase the risk of suicidal behaviour in patients who participate in double-blind randomized trials (Khan et al., 2001) is important but hardly surprising. The risk of suicidal behaviour is one of the exclusion criteria in placebocontrolled trials. Patients with this risk should be omitted from study samples. The analysis of Khan et al. (2001) shows that the risk is not manifest in patients on placebo any more than in patients on antidepressants during trials. What is surprising is the small difference (12±4%) between antidepressants and placebo in the decrease of the total Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) score. The authors give relevant reasons to explain the small difference. I would like to add another reason, which could explain the small difference even more. Total HAMD score is an arithmetical sum of scores of items that are not equal with respect to their relevance for the clinical severity of the disorder. I would expect that the active drug–placebo difference would be greater in scores of the item ‘depressed mood ’ than in the items related to insomnia. The importance of this approach was previously shown by Cole and Davis (1968). They summarized the results of collaborative studies organized by the Psychopharmacology Service Center of the NIMH and several other studies. Analysing the effect of phenothiazine neuroleptics compared to placebo they found that the active drugs were unequivocally more effective. Then, they divided the symptoms according to Bleuler (1911) into accessory (hallucinations, paranoid ideation and hostility) and fundamental symptoms (blunted affect, withdrawal– retardation, autistic behaviour and thought disorder). They found moderate change under placebo on accessory symptoms with little or no change during placebo administration in fundamental symptoms. The greatest amount of total clinical change occurred in the accessory symptoms when drug-induced change was added to change which occurred during placebo administration alone. However, the differential effect of phenothiazines as opposed to placebo was more striking on the fundamental symptoms of schizophrenia.","PeriodicalId":394244,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do antidepressants help much in comparison to placebo?\",\"authors\":\"O. Vinař\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S146114570100267X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The message that assignment to placebo does not increase the risk of suicidal behaviour in patients who participate in double-blind randomized trials (Khan et al., 2001) is important but hardly surprising. The risk of suicidal behaviour is one of the exclusion criteria in placebocontrolled trials. Patients with this risk should be omitted from study samples. The analysis of Khan et al. (2001) shows that the risk is not manifest in patients on placebo any more than in patients on antidepressants during trials. What is surprising is the small difference (12±4%) between antidepressants and placebo in the decrease of the total Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) score. The authors give relevant reasons to explain the small difference. I would like to add another reason, which could explain the small difference even more. Total HAMD score is an arithmetical sum of scores of items that are not equal with respect to their relevance for the clinical severity of the disorder. I would expect that the active drug–placebo difference would be greater in scores of the item ‘depressed mood ’ than in the items related to insomnia. The importance of this approach was previously shown by Cole and Davis (1968). They summarized the results of collaborative studies organized by the Psychopharmacology Service Center of the NIMH and several other studies. Analysing the effect of phenothiazine neuroleptics compared to placebo they found that the active drugs were unequivocally more effective. Then, they divided the symptoms according to Bleuler (1911) into accessory (hallucinations, paranoid ideation and hostility) and fundamental symptoms (blunted affect, withdrawal– retardation, autistic behaviour and thought disorder). They found moderate change under placebo on accessory symptoms with little or no change during placebo administration in fundamental symptoms. The greatest amount of total clinical change occurred in the accessory symptoms when drug-induced change was added to change which occurred during placebo administration alone. However, the differential effect of phenothiazines as opposed to placebo was more striking on the fundamental symptoms of schizophrenia.\",\"PeriodicalId\":394244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S146114570100267X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S146114570100267X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在参加双盲随机试验的患者中,分配安慰剂并不会增加自杀行为的风险(Khan等人,2001年),这一信息很重要,但并不令人惊讶。自杀行为的风险是安慰剂对照试验的排除标准之一。有这种风险的患者应从研究样本中剔除。Khan等人(2001)的分析表明,在试验期间,服用安慰剂的患者与服用抗抑郁药的患者相比,这种风险并不明显。令人惊讶的是,抗抑郁药与安慰剂在汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)总分下降方面的差异很小(12±4%)。作者给出了相关的原因来解释这种微小的差异。我想补充另一个原因,这个原因更能解释这种微小的差异。HAMD总分是一个算术和分数的项目是不相等的相对于他们的相关性的临床严重程度的障碍。我预计,在“抑郁情绪”这一项的得分上,活性药物安慰剂的差异会大于与失眠相关的得分。Cole和Davis(1968)已经证明了这种方法的重要性。他们总结了NIMH精神药理学服务中心和其他几项研究组织的合作研究的结果。分析了吩噻嗪类抗精神病药与安慰剂的效果,他们发现活性药物明显更有效。然后,他们根据Bleuler(1911)将症状分为附属症状(幻觉、偏执观念和敌意)和基本症状(情感迟钝、戒断迟钝、自闭行为和思维障碍)。他们发现安慰剂组辅助症状有中等程度的改变,而安慰剂组基本症状几乎没有改变。当药物引起的变化加到单独服用安慰剂期间发生的变化时,最大的临床变化发生在辅助症状中。然而,与安慰剂相比,吩噻嗪类药物对精神分裂症基本症状的不同效果更为显著。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Do antidepressants help much in comparison to placebo?
The message that assignment to placebo does not increase the risk of suicidal behaviour in patients who participate in double-blind randomized trials (Khan et al., 2001) is important but hardly surprising. The risk of suicidal behaviour is one of the exclusion criteria in placebocontrolled trials. Patients with this risk should be omitted from study samples. The analysis of Khan et al. (2001) shows that the risk is not manifest in patients on placebo any more than in patients on antidepressants during trials. What is surprising is the small difference (12±4%) between antidepressants and placebo in the decrease of the total Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) score. The authors give relevant reasons to explain the small difference. I would like to add another reason, which could explain the small difference even more. Total HAMD score is an arithmetical sum of scores of items that are not equal with respect to their relevance for the clinical severity of the disorder. I would expect that the active drug–placebo difference would be greater in scores of the item ‘depressed mood ’ than in the items related to insomnia. The importance of this approach was previously shown by Cole and Davis (1968). They summarized the results of collaborative studies organized by the Psychopharmacology Service Center of the NIMH and several other studies. Analysing the effect of phenothiazine neuroleptics compared to placebo they found that the active drugs were unequivocally more effective. Then, they divided the symptoms according to Bleuler (1911) into accessory (hallucinations, paranoid ideation and hostility) and fundamental symptoms (blunted affect, withdrawal– retardation, autistic behaviour and thought disorder). They found moderate change under placebo on accessory symptoms with little or no change during placebo administration in fundamental symptoms. The greatest amount of total clinical change occurred in the accessory symptoms when drug-induced change was added to change which occurred during placebo administration alone. However, the differential effect of phenothiazines as opposed to placebo was more striking on the fundamental symptoms of schizophrenia.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Specific Associations Between Type of Childhood Abuse and Elevated C-Reactive Protein in Young Adult Psychiatric Rehabilitation Participants The Clinical Pharmacology of Entacapone (Comtan®) From the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Reviewer. Sex differences in escalated methamphetamine self-administration and altered gene expression associated with incubation of methamphetamine seeking. Association Between Reduced Brain Glucose Metabolism and Cortical Thickness in Alcoholics: Evidence of Neurotoxicity. Erratum: Genotype variant associated with add-on memantine in bipolar II disorder (International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (2014) 17 ( 979))
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1