Journal of affective disorders · 2021
Heart rate variability: A biomarker of selective response to mindfulness-based treatment versus fluoxetine in generalized anxiety disorder.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ferreira-Garcia Rafael, Costa Marianna de Abreu, Gonçalves Francine Guimarães, de Nonohay Roberto Guedes, Nardi Antonio Egídio, Freire Rafael Christophe da Rocha, Manfro Gisele Gus
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are effective for some, but not all patients with anxiety disorders, but no clinical features have been consistently able to differentiate which patients are more likely to respond. In this study, we tested heart rate variability (HRV), a proposed correlate of regulated emotional response, as a moderator of treatment response to an MBI compared with pharmacotherapy.
METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with GAD had HRV data collected before randomization to pharmacological treatment with fluoxetine or Body-in-Mind Training (an MBI focused on bodily movement attention). HRV was used to predict treatment response measured by the Hamilton anxiety rating scale at 0 (baseline), 5, and 8 weeks (end of the intervention).
RESULTS: The HF (nu) index of HRV was a strong moderator of treatment response between BMT and fluoxetine (estimate = 4.27 95%CI [1.19, 8.19]). Although fluoxetine was overall slightly superior to BMT in this study, no differences were found between groups in patients with high HF (nu) scores (estimate = -1.85 CI95% [-9.21, 5.52]). In contrast, patients with low HF (nu) achieved lower anxiety rating scores with fluoxetine treatment when compared with BMT (estimate = -10.29, 95% CI [-17.59, -2.99]).
LIMITATIONS: A relatively small sample of patients was included.
CONCLUSIONS: HRV was able to identify a subgroup for which MBI was less effective than pharmacotherapy and is a promising candidate as a selective biomarker for treatment response between an MBI and fluoxetine.
METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with GAD had HRV data collected before randomization to pharmacological treatment with fluoxetine or Body-in-Mind Training (an MBI focused on bodily movement attention). HRV was used to predict treatment response measured by the Hamilton anxiety rating scale at 0 (baseline), 5, and 8 weeks (end of the intervention).
RESULTS: The HF (nu) index of HRV was a strong moderator of treatment response between BMT and fluoxetine (estimate = 4.27 95%CI [1.19, 8.19]). Although fluoxetine was overall slightly superior to BMT in this study, no differences were found between groups in patients with high HF (nu) scores (estimate = -1.85 CI95% [-9.21, 5.52]). In contrast, patients with low HF (nu) achieved lower anxiety rating scores with fluoxetine treatment when compared with BMT (estimate = -10.29, 95% CI [-17.59, -2.99]).
LIMITATIONS: A relatively small sample of patients was included.
CONCLUSIONS: HRV was able to identify a subgroup for which MBI was less effective than pharmacotherapy and is a promising candidate as a selective biomarker for treatment response between an MBI and fluoxetine.