抑郁症患者使用米氮平与严重自我伤害之间的关系:一项使用英国电子健康记录的积极比较队列研究

IF 6.6 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Evidence Based Mental Health Pub Date : 2022-03-04 DOI:10.1136/ebmental-2021-300355
R. Joseph, R. Jack, R. Morriss, R. Knaggs, D. Butler, C. Hollis, J. Hippisley-Cox, C. Coupland
{"title":"抑郁症患者使用米氮平与严重自我伤害之间的关系:一项使用英国电子健康记录的积极比较队列研究","authors":"R. Joseph, R. Jack, R. Morriss, R. Knaggs, D. Butler, C. Hollis, J. Hippisley-Cox, C. Coupland","doi":"10.1136/ebmental-2021-300355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Studies report an increased risk of self-harm or suicide in people prescribed mirtazapine compared with other antidepressants. Objectives To compare the risk of serious self-harm in people prescribed mirtazapine versus other antidepressants as second-line treatments. Design and setting Cohort study using anonymised English primary care electronic health records, hospital admission data and mortality data with study window 1 January 2005 to 30 November 2018. Participants 24 516 people diagnosed with depression, aged 18–99 years, initially prescribed a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and then prescribed mirtazapine, a different SSRI, amitriptyline or venlafaxine. Main outcome measures Hospitalisation or death due to deliberate self-harm. Age–sex standardised rates were calculated and survival analyses were performed using inverse probability of treatment weighting to account for baseline covariates. Results Standardised rates of serious self-harm ranged from 3.8/1000 person-years (amitriptyline) to 14.1/1000 person-years (mirtazapine). After weighting, the risk of serious self-harm did not differ significantly between the mirtazapine group and the SSRI or venlafaxine groups (HRs (95% CI) 1.18 (0.84 to 1.65) and 0.85 (0.51 to 1.41) respectively). The risk was significantly higher in the mirtazapine than the amitriptyline group (3.04 (1.36 to 6.79)) but was attenuated after adjusting for dose. Conclusions There was no evidence for a difference in risk between mirtazapine and SSRIs or venlafaxine after accounting for baseline characteristics. The higher risk in the mirtazapine versus the amitriptyline group might reflect residual confounding if amitriptyline is avoided in people considered at risk of self-harm. Clinical implications Addressing baseline risk factors and careful monitoring might improve outcomes for people at risk of serious self-harm.","PeriodicalId":12233,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Mental Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association between mirtazapine use and serious self-harm in people with depression: an active comparator cohort study using UK electronic health records\",\"authors\":\"R. Joseph, R. Jack, R. Morriss, R. Knaggs, D. Butler, C. Hollis, J. Hippisley-Cox, C. Coupland\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/ebmental-2021-300355\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Studies report an increased risk of self-harm or suicide in people prescribed mirtazapine compared with other antidepressants. Objectives To compare the risk of serious self-harm in people prescribed mirtazapine versus other antidepressants as second-line treatments. Design and setting Cohort study using anonymised English primary care electronic health records, hospital admission data and mortality data with study window 1 January 2005 to 30 November 2018. Participants 24 516 people diagnosed with depression, aged 18–99 years, initially prescribed a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and then prescribed mirtazapine, a different SSRI, amitriptyline or venlafaxine. Main outcome measures Hospitalisation or death due to deliberate self-harm. Age–sex standardised rates were calculated and survival analyses were performed using inverse probability of treatment weighting to account for baseline covariates. Results Standardised rates of serious self-harm ranged from 3.8/1000 person-years (amitriptyline) to 14.1/1000 person-years (mirtazapine). After weighting, the risk of serious self-harm did not differ significantly between the mirtazapine group and the SSRI or venlafaxine groups (HRs (95% CI) 1.18 (0.84 to 1.65) and 0.85 (0.51 to 1.41) respectively). The risk was significantly higher in the mirtazapine than the amitriptyline group (3.04 (1.36 to 6.79)) but was attenuated after adjusting for dose. Conclusions There was no evidence for a difference in risk between mirtazapine and SSRIs or venlafaxine after accounting for baseline characteristics. The higher risk in the mirtazapine versus the amitriptyline group might reflect residual confounding if amitriptyline is avoided in people considered at risk of self-harm. Clinical implications Addressing baseline risk factors and careful monitoring might improve outcomes for people at risk of serious self-harm.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12233,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence Based Mental Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence Based Mental Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2021-300355\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2021-300355","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究报告称,与其他抗抑郁药相比,服用米氮平的患者自残或自杀的风险增加。目的比较米氮平与其他抗抑郁药作为二线治疗的患者发生严重自残的风险。设计和设置队列研究,使用匿名的英语初级保健电子健康记录、住院数据和死亡率数据,研究窗口为2005年1月1日至2018年11月30日。参与者24516名被诊断为抑郁症的患者,年龄在18-99岁之间,最初给他们开了选择性血清素再摄取抑制剂(SSRI),然后开了米氮平,另一种SSRI,阿米替林或文拉法辛。主要结局指标:故意自残导致住院或死亡。计算年龄-性别标准化率,并使用治疗加权逆概率进行生存分析,以解释基线协变量。结果严重自残的标准化发生率在阿米替林(3.8/1000人年)至米氮平(14.1/1000人年)之间。加权后,米氮平组与SSRI或文拉法辛组的严重自残风险无显著差异(hr (95% CI)分别为1.18(0.84 ~ 1.65)和0.85(0.51 ~ 1.41))。米氮平组的风险明显高于阿米替林组(3.04(1.36 ~ 6.79)),但调整剂量后风险降低。结论:在考虑基线特征后,没有证据表明米氮平与SSRIs或文拉法辛之间的风险有差异。米氮平组与阿米替林组相比风险较高,这可能反映了如果阿米替林被认为有自残风险的人避免使用,则残留的混杂因素。临床意义解决基线风险因素和仔细监测可能会改善严重自残风险人群的结果。
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
Association between mirtazapine use and serious self-harm in people with depression: an active comparator cohort study using UK electronic health records
Background Studies report an increased risk of self-harm or suicide in people prescribed mirtazapine compared with other antidepressants. Objectives To compare the risk of serious self-harm in people prescribed mirtazapine versus other antidepressants as second-line treatments. Design and setting Cohort study using anonymised English primary care electronic health records, hospital admission data and mortality data with study window 1 January 2005 to 30 November 2018. Participants 24 516 people diagnosed with depression, aged 18–99 years, initially prescribed a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and then prescribed mirtazapine, a different SSRI, amitriptyline or venlafaxine. Main outcome measures Hospitalisation or death due to deliberate self-harm. Age–sex standardised rates were calculated and survival analyses were performed using inverse probability of treatment weighting to account for baseline covariates. Results Standardised rates of serious self-harm ranged from 3.8/1000 person-years (amitriptyline) to 14.1/1000 person-years (mirtazapine). After weighting, the risk of serious self-harm did not differ significantly between the mirtazapine group and the SSRI or venlafaxine groups (HRs (95% CI) 1.18 (0.84 to 1.65) and 0.85 (0.51 to 1.41) respectively). The risk was significantly higher in the mirtazapine than the amitriptyline group (3.04 (1.36 to 6.79)) but was attenuated after adjusting for dose. Conclusions There was no evidence for a difference in risk between mirtazapine and SSRIs or venlafaxine after accounting for baseline characteristics. The higher risk in the mirtazapine versus the amitriptyline group might reflect residual confounding if amitriptyline is avoided in people considered at risk of self-harm. Clinical implications Addressing baseline risk factors and careful monitoring might improve outcomes for people at risk of serious self-harm.
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
CiteScore
18.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Mental Health alerts clinicians to important advances in treatment, diagnosis, aetiology, prognosis, continuing education, economic evaluation and qualitative research in mental health. Published by the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the BMJ Publishing Group the journal surveys a wide range of international medical journals applying strict criteria for the quality and validity of research. Clinicians assess the relevance of the best studies and the key details of these essential studies are presented in a succinct, informative abstract with an expert commentary on its clinical application.Evidence-Based Mental Health is a multidisciplinary, quarterly publication.
期刊最新文献
Vitruvian plot: a visualisation tool for multiple outcomes in network meta-analysis. Important adverse events to be evaluated in antidepressant trials and meta-analyses in depression: a large international preference study including patients and healthcare professionals. Comparison of prediction methods for treatment continuation of antipsychotics in children and adolescents with schizophrenia. Components of smartphone cognitive-behavioural therapy for subthreshold depression among 1093 university students: a factorial trial. Associations between antipsychotics and risk of violent crimes and suicidal behaviour in personality disorder.
×
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