Antipsychotic therapy and suicide risk in patients with treatment-resistant depression: target trial emulation framework study

Daniel Hsiang-Te Tsai, Avery Shuei-He Yang, Zi-Xuan Wong, Albert Tzu-Ming Chuang, Michael Chun-Yuan Cheng, Chin-Yao Shen, Shih-Chieh Shao, Edward Chia-Cheng Lai
{"title":"Antipsychotic therapy and suicide risk in patients with treatment-resistant depression: target trial emulation framework study","authors":"Daniel Hsiang-Te Tsai, Avery Shuei-He Yang, Zi-Xuan Wong, Albert Tzu-Ming Chuang, Michael Chun-Yuan Cheng, Chin-Yao Shen, Shih-Chieh Shao, Edward Chia-Cheng Lai","doi":"10.1192/bjp.2024.283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Background</span><p>Previous studies investigating the effectiveness of augmentation therapy have been limited.</p><span>Aims</span><p>To evaluate the effectiveness of antipsychotic augmentation therapies among patients with treatment-resistant depression.</p><span>Method</span><p>We included patients diagnosed with depression receiving two antidepressant courses within 1 year between 2009 and 2020 and used the clone-censor-weight approach to address time-lag bias. Participants were assigned to either an antipsychotic or a third-line antidepressant. Primary outcomes were suicide attempt and suicide death. Cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality were considered as safety outcomes. Weighted pooled logistic regression and non-parametric bootstrapping were used to estimate approximate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.</p><span>Results</span><p>The cohort included 39 949 patients receiving antipsychotics and the same number of matched antidepressant patients. The mean age was 51.2 (standard deviation 16.0) years, and 37.3% of participants were male. Compared with patients who received third-line antidepressants, those receiving antipsychotics had reduced risk of suicide attempt (sub-distribution hazard ratio 0.77; 95% CI 0.72–0.83) but not suicide death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.08; 95% CI 0.93–1.27). After applying the clone-censor-weight approach, there was no association between antipsychotic augmentation and reduced risk of suicide attempt (hazard ratio 1.06; 95% CI 0.89–1.29) or suicide death (hazard ratio 1.22; 95% CI 0.91–1.71). However, antipsychotic users had increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.21; 95% CI 1.07–1.33).</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>Antipsychotic augmentation was not associated with reduced risk of suicide-related outcomes when time-lag bias was addressed; however, it was associated with increased all-cause mortality. These findings do not support the use of antipsychotic augmentation in patients with treatment-resistant depression.</p>","PeriodicalId":22495,"journal":{"name":"The British Journal of Psychiatry","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2024.283","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Previous studies investigating the effectiveness of augmentation therapy have been limited.

Aims

To evaluate the effectiveness of antipsychotic augmentation therapies among patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Method

We included patients diagnosed with depression receiving two antidepressant courses within 1 year between 2009 and 2020 and used the clone-censor-weight approach to address time-lag bias. Participants were assigned to either an antipsychotic or a third-line antidepressant. Primary outcomes were suicide attempt and suicide death. Cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality were considered as safety outcomes. Weighted pooled logistic regression and non-parametric bootstrapping were used to estimate approximate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

The cohort included 39 949 patients receiving antipsychotics and the same number of matched antidepressant patients. The mean age was 51.2 (standard deviation 16.0) years, and 37.3% of participants were male. Compared with patients who received third-line antidepressants, those receiving antipsychotics had reduced risk of suicide attempt (sub-distribution hazard ratio 0.77; 95% CI 0.72–0.83) but not suicide death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.08; 95% CI 0.93–1.27). After applying the clone-censor-weight approach, there was no association between antipsychotic augmentation and reduced risk of suicide attempt (hazard ratio 1.06; 95% CI 0.89–1.29) or suicide death (hazard ratio 1.22; 95% CI 0.91–1.71). However, antipsychotic users had increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.21; 95% CI 1.07–1.33).

Conclusions

Antipsychotic augmentation was not associated with reduced risk of suicide-related outcomes when time-lag bias was addressed; however, it was associated with increased all-cause mortality. These findings do not support the use of antipsychotic augmentation in patients with treatment-resistant depression.

方法 我们纳入了2009年至2020年间1年内接受过两次抗抑郁治疗的抑郁症确诊患者,并采用克隆-校正-加权法来解决时滞偏倚问题。参与者被分配到抗精神病药或三线抗抑郁药中。主要结果为自杀未遂和自杀死亡。心血管死亡和全因死亡率被视为安全性结果。采用加权集合逻辑回归和非参数引导法估算近似危险比和95%置信区间。结果队列中包括39 949名接受抗精神病药物治疗的患者和相同数量的匹配抗抑郁药物患者。平均年龄为 51.2 岁(标准差为 16.0),37.3% 的参与者为男性。与接受三线抗抑郁药物治疗的患者相比,接受抗精神病药物治疗的患者自杀未遂的风险降低了(亚分布危险比为0.77;95% CI为0.72-0.83),但自杀死亡的风险没有降低(调整后危险比为1.08;95% CI为0.93-1.27)。在采用克隆-校正-加权方法后,抗精神病药物增量与自杀未遂风险降低(危险比 1.06;95% CI 0.89-1.29)或自杀死亡风险降低(危险比 1.22;95% CI 0.91-1.71)之间没有关联。结论如果考虑到时滞偏差,抗精神病药物增量与自杀相关结果风险的降低无关;但是,它与全因死亡率的升高有关。这些研究结果并不支持在耐药抑郁症患者中使用抗精神病药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信