Journals / Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 2

Clinical features that affect the response to the antidepresstreatment: a naturalistic follow up study

Antidepresan tedaviye yanıtı etkileyen klinik özellikler: Doğal izleme çalışması

Pages
97–103
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These clinical features could be evaluated as possible indicators of poorer outcomes of antidepressant treatments and therefore considering other treatment options might be important at the beginning of the treatment. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to define the clinical features that affect the antidepressant treatment response by comparing the cases that responded and did not respond to the antidepressant treatment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The cases, whose HAM-D scale scores were reduced 50% or more, were defined as the responders to antidepressant treatment and were compared with non-responders based on their clinical features.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These clinical features could be evaluated as possible indicators of poorer outcomes of antidepressant treatments and therefore considering other treatment options might be important at the beginning of the treatment. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to define the clinical features that affect the antidepressant treatment response by comparing the cases that responded and did not respond to the antidepressant treatment. Methods: Among the patients admitted to the GATA Department of Psychiatry, the ones who were diagnosed with major depressive disorder and have given antidepressant treatment were included to the study. Sociodemographic information form, SCID-I, SCID-II, and Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) were used for the initial assessment. HAM-D scale was repeated at the second, fourth and sixth weeks of the treatment. The cases, whose HAM-D scale scores were reduced 50% or more, were defined as the responders to antidepressant treatment and were compared with non-responders based on their clinical features. Results: At the end of the sixth week of the treatment, 73 (83.9%) of the 87 depression cases responded to the treatment and 14 (16.1%) of them did not respond. The severity of the depression was higher and there were more comorbid Axis-I and Axis-II diagnoses in the non-responders group compared to the responders group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the comorbid physical illnesses, the number of depression episodes and the age of onset of the disease. Conclusion: As a result, the severity of the depression and the comorbidity of Axis-I and Axis-II diagnoses were determined as the clinical features which negatively affect the response to the antidepressant treatment. These clinical features could be evaluated as possible indicators of poorer outcomes of antidepressant treatments and therefore considering other treatment options might be important at the beginning of the treatment. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı depresyonda antidepresan tedaviye yanıt veren ile vermeyen olguların klinik özelliklerini karşılaştırarak tedaviye yanıtı etkileyen özelliklerin tanımlanmasıdır. Yöntem: Çalışmaya, GATA Psikiyatri Kliniğine başvuran hastalar içinden depresyon tanısı konup antidepresan tedavi düzenlenenler alınmıştır. Görüşmelerde sosyodemografik veri toplama formu, SCID-I, SCID-II, HAM-D ölçekleri kullanılmıştır. Tedavinin ikinci, dördüncüaltıncı haftalarında HAM-D ölçeği yeniden uygulanmıştır. Altıncı haftada HAM-D puanlarında %50 ve daha fazla azalma tedaviye yanıt olarak değerlendirilmiş, tedaviye yanıt veren ve vermeyen olgular klinik özellikler açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular: Altıncı haftanın sonunda 87 depresyon olgusunun 73ü (%83.9) tedaviye yanıt vermiş, 14ü (%16.1) yanıt vermemiştir. Tedaviye yanıt vermeyen olgularda verenlere göre depresyonun daha şiddetli olduğu, komorbid eksen-I ve eksen-II tanılarının daha fazla olduğu belirlenmiştir. Gruplar arasında eşlik eden fiziksel hastalık bulunması, depresif nöbet sayısı ve hastalığın başlangıç yaşı açısından anlamlı fark bulunmamıştır. Sonuç: Çalış- manın sonunda antidepresan tedaviye yanıtı olumsuz etkileyen klinik özellikler olarak depresyonun şiddetli olması, komorbid eksen-I ve eksen-II tanılarının bulunması tespit edilmiştir. Bu klinik özelliklerin başlangıçta değerlendirilip antidepresan tedaviye kötü yanıt verebileceği göz önünde bulundurularak ek tedavi seçeneklerinin de göz önünde bulundurulmasının önemli olduğu düşünülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

BULUT, S., AK, M., BULUT, D., TÜRKER, T., CANSEVER, A., AYDIN, H. (2012). Clinical features that affect the response to the antidepresstreatment: a naturalistic follow up study. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 2, 97–103. https://ajindex.com/articles/356165

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Nierenberg A, Mclean NE, Alpert J. Early nonresponse to fluoxetine as a predictor of poor 8-week outcome. Am J Psychiatry 1995; 152:1500-1503
  2. Fava M, Bouffides E, Pava JA, Mccarty MK, Steingard RJ, Rosenbaum JF. Personality disorder comorbidity with major depression and response to fluoxetine treatment. Psychother Psychosom 1994; 62:160-167
  3. Fava M, Uebelacker LA, Alpert J. Major depressive sub- types and treatment response. Biol Psychiatry 1997; 42:568-576
  4. Leuchter AF, Cook IA, Hunter AM, Korb AS. A new paradigm for the prediction of antidepressant treatment response Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2009; 11:435-446
  5. Flament M F, Lane RM, Zhu R, Ying Z. Predictor of acute antidepressant response to fluoxetine and sertralin. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1999; 14:259-275
  6. Tedlow J, Fava M, Uebelacker L, Nierenberg AA, Alpert J, Rosenbaum JF. Outcome definitions and predictors in depression. Psychother Psychosom 1998; 67:266-270
  7. Rush JA, Zimmerman M, Wisniewski SR, Fava M, Hollon SD, Warden D. Comorbid psychiatric disorders in de- pressed outpatients: demographic and clinical features. J Affect Disord 2005; 87:43-55
  8. Evans M, Hammond M, Wilson K, Lye M, Copeland J. Treatment of depression in the elderly: effect of physical illness on response. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1997; 12:1189-1194
  9. Newton-Howes G, Tyrer P, Johnson T. Personality disorder and the outcome of depression: meta-analysis of published studies. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 188:13-20
  10. Brown C, Schulber HC, Madonia JH, Shear MK, Houck PR. Treatment outcomes for primary care patients with major depression and lifetime anxiety disorders. Am J Psychiatry 1996; 153:1293-1300
  11. Nelson NC, Docherty JP, Henschen GM. Algorithms for the treatment of subtypes of unipolar major depression. Psychopharmacol Bull 1995; 31:475-482
  12. Ezguiaga E, Garcia A, Bravo F, Pallares T. Factor asso- ciated with outcome in major depression: 6 month pro- spective study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 1998; 33:552-557
  13. Joyce PR, Paykel ES. Predictor of drug response in depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1989; 46:89-99
  14. Fava M, Davidson KG. Defination and epidemiology of treatment-resistant depression. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1996; 19:179-200
  15. Melartin TK, Rytsala HJ, Leskela US, Lestela-Mielonen PS, Sokero TP, Isometsa ET. Current comorbidity of psychiatric disorders among DSM-IV major depressive disorder patients in psychiatric care in the vantaa depression study. J Clin Psychiatry 2002; 63: