4.5 Article

Treatment-associated suicidal ideation and adverse effects in an open, multicenter trial of fluoxetine for major depressive episodes

期刊

PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS
卷 76, 期 1, 页码 40-46

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000096363

关键词

fluoxetine; suicidal ideation

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [K23MH067060] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [K23DA000455] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NIDA NIH HHS [K23 DA-00455] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [K23 MH-067060] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Some reports suggest that a subset of depressed patients may experience suicidality-that is increase or emergence of suicidal ideation ( SI) or behavior-after initiation of an antidepressant. The time course and clinical correlates of this phenomenon have not been characterized in detail. Method: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, open, 12-week trial of fluoxetine 20 mg in outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive episodes. Adverse effects and other clinical features associated with the emergence of suicidality, defined using item 3 of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, were examined using Cox regression models. Results: Among 414 subjects without SI at baseline, 59 (14.3%) reported SI on at least 1 postbaseline visit. In a Cox regression, emergence of activation and worsening of depression severity were independently associated with emergence of SI, along with female gender, younger age and having thoughts that life was not worth living prior to treatment. Treatment response and remission were significantly less likely among subjects who developed SI. Conclusions: New SI was relatively common in this trial of fluoxetine and associated with the emergence of activation and overall symptomatic worsening. Whether prophylaxis against or aggressive treatment of adverse events can decrease emergence of SI merits further study. Copyright (c) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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