-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and physical and mental health and well-being. There is an association between major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. Antidepressant medication is used in moderate to severe depression; there is now a range of newer generations of these medications.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate, via network meta-analysis (NMA), the comparative effectiveness and safety of different newer generation antidepressants in children and adolescents with a diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) in terms of depression, functioning, suicide-related outcomes and other adverse outcomes. The impact of age, treatment duration, baseline severity, and pharmaceutical industry funding was investigated on clinician-rated depression (CDRS-R) and suicide-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)), together with Ovid Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO till March 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials of six to 18 year olds of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder were included. Trials that compared the effectiveness of newer generation antidepressants with each other or with a placebo were included. Newer generation antidepressants included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitors (NDDIs); and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as Odds Ratios (ORs), and continuous data as Mean Difference (MD) for the following outcomes: depression symptom severity (clinician rated), response or remission of depression symptoms, depression symptom severity (self-rated), functioning, suicide related outcomes and overall adverse outcomes. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). We used "informative statements" to standardise the interpretation and description of the results.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-six studies were included. There were no data for the two primary outcomes (depressive disorder established via clinical diagnostic interview and suicide), therefore, the results comprise only secondary outcomes. Most antidepressants may be associated with a "small and unimportant" reduction in depression symptoms on the CDRS-R scale (range 17 to 113) compared with placebo (high certainty evidence: paroxetine: MD -1.43, 95% CI -3.90, 1.04; vilazodone: MD -0.84, 95% CI -3.03, 1.35; desvenlafaxine MD -0.07, 95% CI -3.51, 3.36; moderate certainty evidence: sertraline: MD -3.51, 95% CI -6.99, -0.04; fluoxetine: MD -2.84, 95% CI -4.12, -1.56; escitalopram: MD -2.62, 95% CI -5.29, 0.04; low certainty evidence: duloxetine: MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.03, -0.37; vortioxetine: MD 0.60, 95% CI -2.52, 3.72; very low certainty evidence for comparisons between other antidepressants and placebo). There were "small and unimportant" differences between most antidepressants in reduction of depression symptoms (high- or moderate-certainty evidence). Results were similar across other outcomes of benefit. In most studies risk of self-harm or suicide was an exclusion criterion for the study. Proportions of suicide-related outcomes were low for most included studies and 95% confidence intervals were wide for all comparisons. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mirtazapine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03, 8.04), duloxetine (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72, 1.82), vilazodone (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68, 1.48), desvenlafaxine (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59, 1.52), citalopram (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.76, 3.87) or vortioxetine (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.29, 8.60) on suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is low certainty evidence that escitalopram may "at least slightly" reduce odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43, 1.84). There is low certainty evidence that fluoxetine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87, 1.86), paroxetine (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85, 3.86), sertraline (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.60, 15.22), and venlafaxine (OR 13.84, 95% CI 1.79, 106.90) may "at least slightly" increase odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is moderate certainty evidence that venlafaxine probably results in an "at least slightly" increased odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with desvenlafaxine (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) and escitalopram (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56). There was very low certainty evidence regarding other comparisons between antidepressants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, methodological shortcomings of the randomised trials make it difficult to interpret the findings with regard to the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressant medications. Findings suggest that most newer antidepressants may reduce depression symptoms in a small and unimportant way compared with placebo. Furthermore, there are likely to be small and unimportant differences in the reduction of depression symptoms between the majority of antidepressants. However, our findings reflect the average effects of the antidepressants, and given depression is a heterogeneous condition, some individuals may experience a greater response. Guideline developers and others making recommendations might therefore consider whether a recommendation for the use of newer generation antidepressants is warranted for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine, as well as fluoxetine (which is currently the only treatment recommended for first-line prescribing) could be considered as a first option. Children and adolescents considered at risk of suicide were frequently excluded from trials, so that we cannot be confident about the effects of these medications for these individuals. If an antidepressant is being considered for an individual, this should be done in consultation with the child/adolescent and their family/caregivers and it remains critical to ensure close monitoring of treatment effects and suicide-related outcomes (combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) in those treated with newer generation antidepressants, given findings that some of these medications may be associated with greater odds of these events. Consideration of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, as per guideline recommendations, remains important.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents; Bias; Child; Citalopram; Depressive Disorder, Major; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Fluoxetine; Humans; Male; Mirtazapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Paroxetine; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline; Suicidal Ideation; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vilazodone Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine
PubMed: 34029378
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013674.pub2 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Oct 2023The concurrent assessment of weight and affective psychopathology outcomes relevant to the psychopharmacology of major eating disorders (EDs), namely anorexia nervosa... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The concurrent assessment of weight and affective psychopathology outcomes relevant to the psychopharmacology of major eating disorders (EDs), namely anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge eating disorder (BED), warrants systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were inquired from inception through August 31st, 2022, for RCTs documenting any psychopharmacological intervention for EDs diagnosed according to validated criteria and reporting weight and psychopathology changes. Adopted keywords were: "anorexia nervosa," "bulimia nervosa," "binge eating disorder," "antidepressant," "antipsychotic," and "mood stabilizer." No language restriction applied.
RESULTS
5122 records were identified, and 203 full-texts were reviewed. Sixty-two studies entered the qualitative synthesis (AN = 22, BN = 23, BED = 17), of which 22 entered the meta-analysis (AN = 9, BN = 10, BED = 3). Concerning BMI increase in AN, olanzapine outperformed placebo (Hedges'g = 0.283, 95%C·I. = 0.051-0.515, I = 0 %; p = .017), whereas fluoxetine failed (Hedges'g = 0.351, 95%C.I. = -0.248 to 0.95, I = 63.37 %; p = .251). Fluoxetine not significantly changed weight (Hedges'g = 0.147, 95%C.I. = -0.157-0.451, I = 0 %; p = .343), reducing binging (Hedges'g = 0.203, 95%C.I. = 0.007-0.399, I = 0 %; p = .042), and purging episodes (Hedges'g = 0.328, 95%C.I. = -0.061-0.717, I = 58.97 %; p = .099) in BN. Lisdexamfetamine reduced weight (Hedges'g = 0.259, 95%C.I. = 0.071-0.446, I = 0 %; p = .007) and binging (Hedges'g = 0.571, 95%C.I. = 0.282-0.860, I = 53.84 %; p < .001) in BED.
LIMITATIONS
Small sample size, short duration, and lack of reliable operational definitions affect most of the included sponsored RCTs.
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of different drugs varies across different EDs, warranting additional primary studies recording broad psychopathological and cardiometabolic outcomes besides weight, especially against established psychotherapy interventions.
Topics: Humans; Fluoxetine; Psychopharmacology; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Feeding and Eating Disorders; Bulimia Nervosa; Binge-Eating Disorder; Anorexia Nervosa; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 37393954
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.06.068 -
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue... Jan 2023Serotonergic psychedelics are re-emerging as potential novel treatments for several psychiatric disorders including major depressive disorder. The Canadian Network for... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Serotonergic psychedelics are re-emerging as potential novel treatments for several psychiatric disorders including major depressive disorder. The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) convened a task force to review the evidence and provide a consensus recommendation for the clinical use of psychedelic treatments for major depressive disorder.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted to identify contemporary clinical trials of serotonergic psychedelics for the treatment of major depressive disorder and cancer-related depression. Studies published between January 1990 and July 2021 were identified using combinations of search terms, inspection of bibliographies and review of other psychedelic reviews and consensus statements. The levels of evidence for efficacy were graded according to the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments criteria.
RESULTS
Only psilocybin and ayahuasca have contemporary clinical trials evaluating antidepressant effects. Two pilot studies showed preliminary positive effects of single-dose ayahuasca for treatment-resistant depression (Level 3 evidence). Small randomized controlled trials of psilocybin combined with psychotherapy showed superiority to waitlist controls and comparable efficacy and safety to an active comparator (escitalopram with supportive psychotherapy) in major depressive disorder, with additional randomized controlled trials showing efficacy specifically in cancer-related depression (Level 3 evidence). There was only one open-label trial of psilocybin in treatment-resistant unipolar depression (Level 4 evidence). Small sample sizes and functional unblinding were major limitations in all studies. Adverse events associated with psychedelics, including psychological (e.g., psychotomimetic effects) and physical (e.g., nausea, emesis and headaches) effects, were generally transient.
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently only low-level evidence to support the efficacy and safety of psychedelics for major depressive disorder. In Canada, as of 2022, psilocybin remains an experimental option that is only available through clinical trials or the special access program. As such, Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments considers psilocybin an experimental treatment and recommends its use primarily within clinical trials, or, less commonly, through the special access program in rare, special circumstances.
Topics: Humans; Hallucinogens; Psilocybin; Depressive Disorder, Major; Canada; Anxiety; Neoplasms
PubMed: 35975555
DOI: 10.1177/07067437221111371 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Most tobacco control programmes for adolescents are based around prevention of uptake, but teenage smoking is still common. It is unclear if interventions that are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Most tobacco control programmes for adolescents are based around prevention of uptake, but teenage smoking is still common. It is unclear if interventions that are effective for adults can also help adolescents to quit. This is the update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of strategies that help young people to stop smoking tobacco.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register in June 2017. This includes reports for trials identified in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsyclNFO.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included individually and cluster-randomized controlled trials recruiting young people, aged under 20 years, who were regular tobacco smokers. We included any interventions for smoking cessation; these could include pharmacotherapy, psycho-social interventions and complex programmes targeting families, schools or communities. We excluded programmes primarily aimed at prevention of uptake. The primary outcome was smoking status after at least six months' follow-up among those who smoked at baseline.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of candidate trials and extracted data. We evaluated included studies for risk of bias using standard Cochrane methodology and grouped them by intervention type and by the theoretical basis of the intervention. Where meta-analysis was appropriate, we estimated pooled risk ratios using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method, based on the quit rates at six months' follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-one trials involving more than 13,000 young people met our inclusion criteria (26 individually randomized controlled trials and 15 cluster-randomized trials). We judged the majority of studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Interventions were varied, with the majority adopting forms of individual or group counselling, with or without additional self-help materials to form complex interventions. Eight studies used primarily computer or messaging interventions, and four small studies used pharmacological interventions (nicotine patch or gum, or bupropion). There was evidence of an intervention effect for group counselling (9 studies, risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.77), but not for individual counselling (7 studies, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.39), mixed delivery methods (8 studies, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66) or the computer or messaging interventions (pooled RRs between 0.79 and 1.18, 9 studies in total). There was no clear evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions, although confidence intervals were wide (nicotine replacement therapy 3 studies, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.58; bupropion 1 study RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.02). No subgroup precluded the possibility of a clinically important effect. Studies of pharmacotherapies reported some adverse events considered related to study treatment, though most were mild, whereas no adverse events were reported in studies of behavioural interventions. Our certainty in the findings for all comparisons is low or very low, mainly because of the clinical heterogeneity of the interventions, imprecision in the effect size estimates, and issues with risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence that either behavioural support or smoking cessation medication increases the proportion of young people that stop smoking in the long-term. Findings are most promising for group-based behavioural interventions, but evidence remains limited for all intervention types. There continues to be a need for well-designed, adequately powered, randomized controlled trials of interventions for this population of smokers.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Bupropion; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Counseling; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tobacco Use Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Young Adult
PubMed: 29148565
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003289.pub6 -
JAMA Psychiatry Apr 2022Combining antidepressants is frequently done in the treatment of acute depression, but studies have yielded conflicting results. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Combining antidepressants is frequently done in the treatment of acute depression, but studies have yielded conflicting results.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy. Combinations using presynaptic α2-autoreceptor antagonists or bupropion were investigated separately.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from each database inception through January 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing combinations of antidepressants with antidepressant monotherapy in adult patients with acute depression were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Following guidelines from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook, 2 reviewers independently performed a literature search, study selection, data extraction, and evaluation of risk of bias. Data were pooled in random-effects analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcome was efficacy measured as standardized mean difference (SMD); secondary outcomes were response, remission, change from baseline in rating scale scores, number of dropouts, and number of dropouts due to adverse events.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine RCTs including 6751 patients were eligible. Combination treatment was statistically significantly associated with superior treatment outcomes relative to monotherapy (SMD = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19-0.44). Combining a reuptake inhibitor with an antagonist of presynaptic α2-autoreceptors was superior to other combinations (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). Bupropion combinations were not superior to monotherapy (SMD = 0.10; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.27). Numbers of dropouts and dropouts due to adverse events did not differ between treatments. Studies were heterogeneous, and there was indication of publication bias (Egger test result was positive; P = .007, df = 36), but results remained robust across prespecified secondary outcomes and sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including analyses restricted to studies with low risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this meta-analysis of RCTs comparing combinations of antidepressants with antidepressant monotherapy, combining antidepressants was associated with superior treatment outcomes but not with more patients dropping out of treatment. Combinations using an antagonist of presynaptic α2-autoreceptors may be preferable and may be applied as a first-line treatment in severe cases of depression and for patients considered nonresponders.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Autoreceptors; Bupropion; Depression; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35171215
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.4313 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Dec 2019Currently, there are no accepted FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for cocaine use disorder, though numerous medications have been tested in clinical trials. We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Currently, there are no accepted FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for cocaine use disorder, though numerous medications have been tested in clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better understand the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for cocaine use disorder.
METHODS
We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) through November 2017 for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions in adults with cocaine use disorder. When possible, we combined the findings of trials with comparable interventions and outcome measures in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of individual trials and the strength of evidence for each outcome using standardized criteria. Outcomes included continuous abstinence (3+ consecutive weeks); cocaine use; harms; and study retention. For relapse prevention studies (participants abstinent at baseline), we examined lapse (first cocaine positive or missing UDS) and relapse (two consecutive cocaine positive or missed UDS').
RESULTS
Sixty-six different drugs or drug combinations were studied in seven systematic reviews and 48 RCTs that met inclusion criteria. Antidepressants were the most widely studied drug class (38 RCTs) but appear to have no effect on cocaine use or treatment retention. Increased abstinence was found with bupropion (2 RCTs: RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.59), topiramate (2 RCTs: RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.73), and psychostimulants (14 RCTs: RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.77), though the strength of evidence for these findings was low. We found moderate strength of evidence that antipsychotics improved treatment retention (8 RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.75).
DISCUSSION
Most of the pharmacotherapies studied were not effective for treating cocaine use disorder. Bupropion, psychostimulants, and topiramate may improve abstinence, and antipsychotics may improve retention. Contingency management and behavioral interventions along with pharmacotherapy should continue to be explored.
SR REGISTRATION
Prospero CRD42018085667.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Central Nervous System Agents; Cocaine; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Drug Therapy; Humans
PubMed: 31183685
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05074-8 -
Pharmacopsychiatry May 2022Partial response to pharmacotherapy is common in major depressive disorder (MDD) and many patients require alternative pharmacotherapy or augmentation, including... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Partial response to pharmacotherapy is common in major depressive disorder (MDD) and many patients require alternative pharmacotherapy or augmentation, including adjunctive L-methylfolate. Given that L-methylfolate augmentation is rarely included in major clinical practice guidelines, we sought to systematically review evidence for L-methylfolate augmentation in adults with MDD and to examine its efficacy meta-analytically.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed for articles up to December 31, 2020, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Included studies were published in peer-reviewed, English-language journals and examined L-methylfolate adjunctive therapy in depressive disorders or its effect on antidepressant response. A fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were conducted.
RESULTS
Qualitative assessment of nine articles (N=6,707 patients) suggests that adjunctive L-methylfolate improved antidepressant response. In the meta-analysis of categorical Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-17 response, (three studies, 483) adjunctive L-methylfolate was associated with a small effect versus antidepressant monotherapy (relative risk: 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.08 to 1.46, 0.004). A meta-analysis of four studies (507) using a continuous measure of depressive symptoms showed a similar effect of adjunctive L-methylfolate (standardized mean difference=- 0.38, 95% CI=- 0.59 to-0.17, 0.0003).
CONCLUSION
Adjunctive L-methylfolate may have modest efficacy in antidepressant-treated adults with MDD.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Tetrahydrofolates
PubMed: 34794190
DOI: 10.1055/a-1681-2047 -
Molecular Psychiatry Aug 2021We searched Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL from inception until 22 May 2020 to investigate which antipsychotics and/or mood stabilizers are better for patients with bipolar...
We searched Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL from inception until 22 May 2020 to investigate which antipsychotics and/or mood stabilizers are better for patients with bipolar disorder in the maintenance phase. We performed two categorical network meta-analyses. The first included monotherapy studies and studies in which the two drugs used were specified (i.e., aripiprazole, aripiprazole once monthly, aripiprazole+lamotrigine, aripiprazole+valproate, asenapine, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, lamotrigine+valproate, lithium, lithium+oxcarbazepine, lithium+valproate, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone long-acting injection, valproate, and placebo). The second included studies on second-generation antipsychotic combination therapies (SGAs) (i.e., aripiprazole, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone) with lithium or valproate (LIT/VAL) compared with placebo with LIT/VAL. Outcomes were recurrence/relapse rate of any mood episode (RR-any, primary), depressive episode (RR-dep) and manic/hypomanic/mixed episode (RR-mania), discontinuation, mortality, and individual adverse events. Risk ratios and 95% credible interval were calculated. Forty-one randomized controlled trials were identified (n = 9821; mean study duration, 70.5 ± 36.6 weeks; percent female, 54.1%; mean age, 40.7 years). All active treatments other than carbamazepine, lamotrigine+valproate (no data) and paliperidone outperformed the placebo for RR-any. Aripiprazole+valproate, lamotrigine, lamotrigine+valproate, lithium, olanzapine, and quetiapine outperformed placebo for RR-dep. All active treatments, other than aripiprazole+valproate, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and lamotrigine+valproate, outperformed placebo for RR-mania. Asenapine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and valproate outperformed placebo for all-cause discontinuation. All SGAs+LIT/VALs other than olanzapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-any. Lurasidone+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-dep. Aripiprazole+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-mania. Lurasidone+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for all-cause discontinuation. Treatment efficacy, tolerability, and safety profiles differed among treatments.
Topics: Adult; Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Female; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33177610
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-020-00946-6 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Aug 2016Several interventions are available for management of obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults, but few studies have compared their relative efficacy in a single... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several interventions are available for management of obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults, but few studies have compared their relative efficacy in a single analysis. We aimed to simultaneously compare all available treatments using both direct and indirect data.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the two controlled trials registers maintained by the Cochrane Collaboration Common Mental Disorders group for trials published up to Feb 16, 2016. We selected randomised controlled trials in which an active psychotherapeutic or pharmacological intervention had been used in adults with obsessive-compulsive disorder. We allowed all comorbidities except for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. We excluded studies that focused exclusively on treatment-resistant patient populations defined within the same study. We extracted data from published reports. The primary outcome was symptom severity as measured by the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. We report mean differences with 95% credible intervals compared with placebo. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002441.
FINDINGS
We identified 1480 articles in our search and included 53 articles (54 trials; 6652 participants) in the network meta-analysis. Behavioural therapy (mean difference -14·48 [95% credible interval -18·61 to -10·23]; 11 trials and 287 patients), cognitive therapy (-13·36 [-18·40 to -8·21]; six trials and 172 patients), behavioural therapy and clomipramine (-12·97 [-19·18 to -6·74]; one trial and 31 patients), cognitive behavioural therapy and fluvoxamine (-7·50 [-13·89 to -1·17]; one trial and six patients), cognitive behavioural therapy (-5·37 [-9·10 to -1·63]; nine trials and 231 patients), clomipramine (-4·72 [-6·85 to -2·60]; 13 trials and 831 patients), and all SSRIs (class effect -3·49 [95% credible interval -5·12 to -1·81]; 37 trials and 3158 patients) had greater effects than did drug placebo. Clomipramine was not better than were SSRIs (-1·23 [-3·41 to 0·94]). Psychotherapeutic interventions had a greater effect than did medications, but a serious limitation was that most psychotherapeutic trials included patients who were taking stable doses of antidepressants (12 [80%] of the 15 psychotherapy trials explicitly allowed antidepressants).
INTERPRETATION
A range of interventions is effective in the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder, but considerable uncertainty and limitations exist regarding their relative efficacy. Taking all the evidence into account, the combination of psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological interventions is likely to be more effective than are psychotherapeutic interventions alone, at least in severe obsessive-compulsive disorder.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Psychotherapy; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27318812
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30069-4 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2016Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a relatively common and disabling condition. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological and psychological interventions for the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder in children/adolescents and adults.
BACKGROUND
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a relatively common and disabling condition.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effectiveness, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological and psychological interventions for the treatment of OCD in children, adolescents and adults.
DATA SOURCES
We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Trials Registers, which includes trials from routine searches of all the major databases. Searches were conducted from inception to 31 December 2014.
REVIEW METHODS
We undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of the clinical effectiveness and acceptability of available treatments. Outcomes for effectiveness included mean differences in the total scores of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale or its children's version and total dropouts for acceptability. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we developed a probabilistic model informed by the results of the NMA. All analyses were performed using OpenBUGS version 3.2.3 (members of OpenBUGS Project Management Group; see www.openbugs.net ).
RESULTS
We included 86 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in our systematic review. In the NMA we included 71 RCTs (54 in adults and 17 in children and adolescents) for effectiveness and 71 for acceptability (53 in adults and 18 in children and adolescents), comprising 7643 and 7942 randomised patients available for analysis, respectively. In general, the studies were of medium quality. The results of the NMA showed that in adults all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and clomipramine had greater effects than drug placebo. There were no differences between SSRIs, and a trend for clomipramine to be more effective did not reach statistical significance. All active psychological therapies had greater effects than drug placebo. Behavioural therapy (BT) and cognitive therapy (CT) had greater effects than psychological placebo, but cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) did not. BT and CT, but not CBT, had greater effects than medications, but there are considerable uncertainty and methodological limitations that should be taken into account. In children and adolescents, CBT and BT had greater effects than drug placebo, but differences compared with psychological placebo did not reach statistical significance. SSRIs as a class showed a trend for superiority over drug placebo, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. However, the superiority of some individual drugs (fluoxetine, sertraline) was marginally statistically significant. Regarding acceptability, all interventions except clomipramine had good tolerability. In adults, CT and BT had the highest probability of being most cost-effective at conventional National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds. In children and adolescents, CBT or CBT combined with a SSRI were more likely to be cost-effective. The results are uncertain and sensitive to assumptions about treatment effect and the exclusion of trials at high risk of bias.
LIMITATIONS
The majority of psychological trials included patients who were taking medications. There were few studies in children and adolescents.
CONCLUSIONS
In adults, psychological interventions, clomipramine, SSRIs or combinations of these are all effective, whereas in children and adolescents, psychological interventions, either as monotherapy or combined with specific SSRIs, were more likely to be effective. Future RCTs should improve their design, in particular for psychotherapy or combined interventions.
STUDY REGISTRATION
The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002441.
FUNDING DETAILS
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Behavior Therapy; Child; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Interatrial Block; Models, Econometric; Network Meta-Analysis; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; State Medicine; United Kingdom
PubMed: 27306503
DOI: 10.3310/hta20430