Lucas McKeown, R. Taylor, E. Day, Rupal Shah, L. Marwood, Helena Tee, Jess Kerr-Gaffney, E. Oprea, J. Geddes, R. H. McAllister-Williams, A. Young, A. Cleare
{"title":"Patient perspectives of lithium and quetiapine augmentation treatment in treatment-resistant depression: A qualitative assessment","authors":"Lucas McKeown, R. Taylor, E. Day, Rupal Shah, L. Marwood, Helena Tee, Jess Kerr-Gaffney, E. Oprea, J. Geddes, R. H. McAllister-Williams, A. Young, A. Cleare","doi":"10.1177/02698811221089042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) has a profound cost to patients and healthcare services worldwide. Pharmacological augmentation is one therapeutic option for TRD, with lithium and quetiapine currently recommended as first-line agents. Patient opinions about pharmacological augmentation may affect treatment outcomes, yet these have not been systematically explored. Aims: This study aimed to qualitatively assess patient experiences of lithium and quetiapine augmentation. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 patients from the ongoing lithium versus quetiapine open-label trial comparing these augmentation agents in patients with TRD. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis was used to assess patient opinions of each agent. Results: Four main themes were generated from the thematic analysis: ‘Initial concerns’, ‘Experience of side effects’, ‘Perception of treatment efficacy’ and ‘Positive perception of treatment monitoring’. Patient accounts indicated a predominantly positive experience of lithium and quetiapine augmentation. Greater apprehension about side effects was reported for lithium prior to treatment initiation, but greater experience of negative side effects was reported for quetiapine. Clinical monitoring was perceived positively. Conclusion: Patient accounts suggested treatment augmentation with lithium or quetiapine was acceptable and helpful for most patients. However, anticipation and experiences of adverse side effects may prevent some patients from benefitting from these treatments.","PeriodicalId":156490,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811221089042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:难治性抑郁症(TRD)对全世界的患者和卫生保健服务造成了巨大的损失。药物增强治疗是TRD的一种治疗选择,目前推荐锂和喹硫平作为一线药物。患者对药物增强的意见可能会影响治疗结果,但这些尚未被系统地探讨。目的:本研究旨在定性评估锂离子和奎硫平增强治疗的患者体验。方法:对正在进行的锂与奎硫平开放标签试验中的32名患者进行半结构化访谈,比较这些增强剂对TRD患者的作用。访谈录音,转录和专题分析用于评估每个药物的患者意见。结果:从主题分析中产生了四个主题:“最初的关注”、“副作用的经历”、“治疗效果的感知”和“治疗监测的积极感知”。患者帐户表明,主要是积极的经验,锂和喹硫平增加。据报道,在治疗开始前对锂的副作用有更大的担忧,但喹硫平的副作用更大。临床监测被认为是积极的。结论:患者报告表明,对大多数患者来说,锂或喹硫平的强化治疗是可接受的,也是有益的。然而,对不良副作用的预期和经历可能会阻止一些患者从这些治疗中获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient perspectives of lithium and quetiapine augmentation treatment in treatment-resistant depression: A qualitative assessment
Background: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) has a profound cost to patients and healthcare services worldwide. Pharmacological augmentation is one therapeutic option for TRD, with lithium and quetiapine currently recommended as first-line agents. Patient opinions about pharmacological augmentation may affect treatment outcomes, yet these have not been systematically explored. Aims: This study aimed to qualitatively assess patient experiences of lithium and quetiapine augmentation. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 patients from the ongoing lithium versus quetiapine open-label trial comparing these augmentation agents in patients with TRD. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis was used to assess patient opinions of each agent. Results: Four main themes were generated from the thematic analysis: ‘Initial concerns’, ‘Experience of side effects’, ‘Perception of treatment efficacy’ and ‘Positive perception of treatment monitoring’. Patient accounts indicated a predominantly positive experience of lithium and quetiapine augmentation. Greater apprehension about side effects was reported for lithium prior to treatment initiation, but greater experience of negative side effects was reported for quetiapine. Clinical monitoring was perceived positively. Conclusion: Patient accounts suggested treatment augmentation with lithium or quetiapine was acceptable and helpful for most patients. However, anticipation and experiences of adverse side effects may prevent some patients from benefitting from these treatments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信