4.5 Article

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and lung function in the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis lung study

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 196, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2022.106805

关键词

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; Depression; Lung function; FEVI; Dyspnea; COPD

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [HHSN268201500003I, N01-HC-95159, N01-HC-95160, N01-HC-95161, N01-HC-95162, N01HC-95163, N01-HC-95164, N01-HC-95165, N01-HC-95166, N01-HC95167, N01-HC-95168, N01-HC-95169]
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1-TR-000040, UL1-TR001079, UL1-TR-001420]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the relationship between depression and the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The results showed that patients taking SSRIs had lower FEV1 and a higher likelihood of experiencing dyspnea compared to those not taking antidepressants.
Objective: Depression in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) has been shown to be chronic and potentially increase the burden of symptoms. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have anti-inflammatory and serotonergic effects that may improve lung function. We hypothesized that participants taking SSRIs have better lung function than those not taking SSRIs. The dataset was the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) Lung Study. Use of SSRIs was assessed by medication inventory; spirometry was conducted following standard guidelines; dyspnea ratings were self-reported. Results: Contrary to our hypothesis, FEV1 was lower, and odds of dyspnea were higher among participants taking SSRIs as compared with those not taking an antidepressant; these differences persisted even with control for potential confounders including depressive symptoms. We found no evidence of a beneficial association between SSRI use and lung function or dyspnea in a large US-based cohort.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据