Suppr超能文献

拉莫三嗪治疗双相情感障碍的维持治疗。

Lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.

机构信息

Faculty of Clinical Pharmacy, Kobe Gakuin University, Kobe, Japan.

Department of Pharmacy, Okayama Saiseikai General Hospital, Kita-Ku, Japan.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 15;9(9):CD013575. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013575.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder with repetitive mania/hypomania as well as depressive episodes, which eventually results in marked impairment in overall functioning and health-related quality of life.  A worldwide prevalence rate of 2.4% has been reported. The risk of suicide is higher in people with bipolar disorder than those with other mental disorders. Therefore, effective management of bipolar disorder in the maintenance period is warranted to minimize the risk of relapse or recurrence. Although lithium has been the standard treatment of bipolar disorder for many years, it is associated with adverse effects and teratogenicity. Lamotrigine is approved to be expected for prevention of recurrence for the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. In addition, lamotrigine is as effective as lithium. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to confirm the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialized Register (CCMDCTR) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to 21 May 2021. We also searched international trial registries and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with bipolar disorder who were treated with lamotrigine, placebo or lithium.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviews authors independently checked the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a standardized form. Data extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcome measures in the term of efficacy and tolerability. Study information were then entered into RevMan web.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies with a total of 2314 participants in this review; 1146 were randomized to lamotrigine, 869 were randomized to placebo and, 299 to lithium. We rated all studies as having an unclear risk of bias in at least one domain of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias, with the most commonly observed weakness being selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment). We judged five studies to be at a high risk of detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment). These potential biases pose as major threat to the validity of the included studies in this review. Outcomes of efficacy showed a possible advantage of lamotrigine over placebo. The estimated risk ratio (RR) for recurrence of manic symptom at one year as measured by the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) was 0.67, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.87; 3 studies, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence) in favor of lamotrigine. The RR of clinical worsening with the need for additional psychotropic treatment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98; 4 studies, 756 participants) based on moderate-certainty evidence. The possible benefits of lamotrigine were also seen for the outcome of treatment withdrawal due to any reason at 6-12 months after treatment (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; 4 studies, 700 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding tolerability, our analyses showed that the incidence rates of adverse effects were similar between the lamotrigine group and the placebo group (short-term effect: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.42; 5 studies, 1138 participants; very low-certainty evidence; long-term effect: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; 4 studies, 756 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the comparison between lamotrigine and lithium, efficacy was similar between groups except for recurrence of mania episode at one year. Recurrence of manic symptoms was higher in the lamotrigine group than that of the lithium group (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.44; 3 studies, 602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Analysis of adverse effects at 6-12 months showed that a lower proportion of participants experienced at least one adverse effect when treated with lamotrigine compared to lithium (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; 4 studies, 691 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low- to moderate-certainty evidence collectively suggests that lamotrigine may be superior to placebo as a treatment modality for bipolar disorder. In comparison to lithium, people with bipolar disorder seem to tolerate lamotrigine better in the long run; however, the demonstrated efficacy in the maintenance of bipolar disorder was similar between the two groups.

摘要

背景

双相障碍是一种慢性精神障碍,反复发作躁狂/轻躁狂和抑郁发作,最终导致整体功能和健康相关生活质量显著受损。据报道,全球患病率为 2.4%。双相障碍患者的自杀风险高于其他精神障碍患者。因此,有必要在维持期对双相障碍进行有效管理,以降低复发或复发的风险。虽然锂已多年来一直是双相障碍的标准治疗方法,但它与不良反应和致畸性有关。拉莫三嗪已被批准用于预防双相障碍的复发,作为维持治疗。此外,拉莫三嗪与锂的疗效相当。因此,我们进行了系统评价,以确认拉莫三嗪在双相障碍维持治疗中的疗效和安全性。

目的

评估拉莫三嗪在双相障碍维持治疗中的疗效和耐受性。

检索方法

我们检索了 Ovid MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO、Cochrane 常见精神障碍组专责登记册(CCMDCTR)和 Cochrane 中央对照试验注册中心(CENTRAL),检索时间从建库至 2021 年 5 月 21 日。我们还检索了国际试验注册处,并联系了该领域的专家。

入选标准

我们纳入了使用拉莫三嗪、安慰剂或锂治疗的成人双相障碍随机对照试验。

数据收集和分析

两名综述作者独立检查研究的资格,并使用标准化表格提取数据。提取的数据包括研究特征、参与者特征、干预措施细节、设置以及疗效和耐受性方面的结局测量。然后将研究信息输入到 RevMan web 中。

主要结果

我们纳入了 11 项研究,共 2314 名参与者;1146 名随机分配至拉莫三嗪组,869 名随机分配至安慰剂组,299 名随机分配至锂组。我们将所有研究的偏倚风险评为至少有一个领域存在不明确(Cochrane 工具评估偏倚风险的随机序列生成和分配隐藏),最常见的弱点是选择偏倚(随机序列生成和分配隐藏)。我们认为五项研究存在检测偏倚(结局评估的盲法)的高风险。这些潜在的偏倚对本综述中纳入的研究的有效性构成了重大威胁。疗效结局显示拉莫三嗪优于安慰剂。使用 Young 躁狂评定量表(YMRS)测量,一年时躁狂症状复发的风险比(RR)为 0.67(95%置信区间[CI] 0.51 至 0.87;3 项研究,663 名参与者;低确定性证据),有利于拉莫三嗪。需要额外精神治疗的临床恶化风险(RR 0.82,95%CI 0.70 至 0.98;4 项研究,756 名参与者)基于中等确定性证据。拉莫三嗪还可能对治疗 6-12 个月后因任何原因停药的结局产生有益影响(RR 0.88,95%CI 0.78 至 0.99;4 项研究,700 名参与者;中等确定性证据)。关于耐受性,我们的分析表明,拉莫三嗪组和安慰剂组的不良反应发生率相似(短期效果:RR 1.07,95%CI 0.81 至 1.42;5 项研究,1138 名参与者;极低确定性证据;长期效果:RR 0.97,95%CI 0.77 至 1.23;4 项研究,756 名参与者;中等确定性证据)。在拉莫三嗪与锂的比较中,除了一年时躁狂发作的复发外,两组的疗效相似。拉莫三嗪组的躁狂发作复发率高于锂组(RR 2.13,95%CI 1.32 至 3.44;3 项研究,602 名参与者;中等确定性证据)。分析 6-12 个月时的不良反应发现,与锂相比,接受拉莫三嗪治疗的参与者中至少有一种不良反应的比例较低(RR 0.70,95%CI 0.51 至 0.96;4 项研究,691 名参与者;中等确定性证据)。

作者结论

低至中等确定性证据共同表明,拉莫三嗪可能优于安慰剂作为双相障碍的治疗方法。与锂相比,双相障碍患者长期来看可能更能耐受拉莫三嗪;然而,两组在双相障碍维持治疗中的疗效相似。

相似文献

1
Lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 15;9(9):CD013575. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013575.pub2.
2
Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain in adults.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 19;5(5):CD010967. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010967.pub3.
3
Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Mar 29;3(3):CD005612. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005612.pub5.
4
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 17;11(11):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub7.
5
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 14;9(9):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub6.
6
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jan 29;1(1):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub9.
7
Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 28;6(6):CD001031. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001031.pub4.
8
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 8;1(1):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub8.
9
Sertindole for schizophrenia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jul 20;2005(3):CD001715. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001715.pub2.
10
Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 6;9(9):CD002834. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002834.pub3.

引用本文的文献

1
Bidirectional causal association between frailty and six psychiatric disorders.
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2025 Sep 19. doi: 10.1007/s00406-025-02098-6.
4
Effect of Lamotrigine on Refractory Epilepsy: Clinical Outcomes and EEG Changes.
Int J Gen Med. 2025 Jan 21;18:281-290. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S505040. eCollection 2025.
7
Global trends and hotspots in pain associated with bipolar disorder in the last 20 years: a bibliometric analysis.
Front Neurol. 2024 May 23;15:1393022. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1393022. eCollection 2024.
9
Bipolar II Disorder: Understudied and Underdiagnosed.
Focus (Am Psychiatr Publ). 2023 Oct;21(4):354-362. doi: 10.1176/appi.focus.20230015. Epub 2023 Oct 15.
10
Anti-seizure Medications: Challenges and Opportunities.
CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets. 2024;23(9):1120-1133. doi: 10.2174/0118715273275793231030060833.

本文引用的文献

3
Changes in prescribing for bipolar disorder between 2009 and 2016: national-level data linkage study in Scotland.
Br J Psychiatry. 2019 Jul;215(1):415-421. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2019.16. Epub 2019 Feb 28.
4
Lithium during pregnancy and after delivery: a review.
Int J Bipolar Disord. 2018 Dec 2;6(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s40345-018-0135-7.
5
The pharmacological management of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and critical literature review.
Seizure. 2018 Dec;63:17-25. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2018.10.016. Epub 2018 Oct 26.
9
The Diagnosis and Management of Bipolar I and II Disorders: Clinical Practice Update.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2017 Oct;92(10):1532-1551. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.06.022. Epub 2017 Sep 6.
10
The risks associated with the use of lamotrigine during pregnancy.
Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2018 Mar;22(1):2-5. doi: 10.1080/13651501.2017.1341986. Epub 2017 Jun 28.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验