-
Association Between Physical Activity and Risk of Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA Psychiatry Jun 2022Depression is the leading cause of mental health-related disease burden and may be reduced by physical activity, but the dose-response relationship between activity and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Depression is the leading cause of mental health-related disease burden and may be reduced by physical activity, but the dose-response relationship between activity and depression is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and meta-analyze the dose-response association between physical activity and incident depression from published prospective studies of adults.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and the reference lists of systematic reviews retrieved by a systematic search up to December 11, 2020, with no language limits. The date of the search was November 12, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
We included prospective cohort studies reporting physical activity at 3 or more exposure levels and risk estimates for depression with 3000 or more adults and 3 years or longer of follow-up.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction was completed independently by 2 extractors and cross-checked for errors. A 2-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analysis was used to synthesize data. Study-specific associations were estimated using generalized least-squares regression and the pooled association was estimated by combining the study-specific coefficients using restricted maximum likelihood.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The outcome of interest was depression, including (1) presence of major depressive disorder indicated by self-report of physician diagnosis, registry data, or diagnostic interviews and (2) elevated depressive symptoms established using validated cutoffs for a depressive screening instrument.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies comprising 191 130 participants and 2 110 588 person-years were included. An inverse curvilinear dose-response association between physical activity and depression was observed, with steeper association gradients at lower activity volumes; heterogeneity was large and significant (I2 = 74%; P < .001). Relative to adults not reporting any activity, those accumulating half the recommended volume of physical activity (4.4 marginal metabolic equivalent task hours per week [mMET-h/wk]) had 18% (95% CI, 13%-23%) lower risk of depression. Adults accumulating the recommended volume of 8.8 mMET hours per week had 25% (95% CI, 18%-32%) lower risk with diminishing potential benefits and higher uncertainty observed beyond that exposure level. There were diminishing additional potential benefits and greater uncertainty at higher volumes of physical activity. Based on an estimate of exposure prevalences among included cohorts, if less active adults had achieved the current physical activity recommendations, 11.5% (95% CI, 7.7%-15.4%) of depression cases could have been prevented.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review and meta-analysis of associations between physical activity and depression suggests significant mental health benefits from being physically active, even at levels below the public health recommendations. Health practitioners should therefore encourage any increase in physical activity to improve mental health.
Topics: Adult; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Exercise; Humans; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 35416941
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0609 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Aug 2023To estimate the efficacy of exercise on depressive symptoms compared with non-active control groups and to determine the moderating effects of exercise on depression and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the efficacy of exercise on depressive symptoms compared with non-active control groups and to determine the moderating effects of exercise on depression and the presence of publication bias.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science were searched without language restrictions from inception to 13 September2022 (PROSPERO registration no CRD42020210651).
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials including participants aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder or those with depressive symptoms determined by validated screening measures scoring above the threshold value, investigating the effects of an exercise intervention (aerobic and/or resistance exercise) compared with a non-exercising control group.
RESULTS
Forty-one studies, comprising 2264 participants post intervention were included in the meta-analysis demonstrating large effects (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.946, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.71) favouring exercise interventions which corresponds to the number needed to treat (NNT)=2 (95% CI 1.68 to 2.59). Large effects were found in studies with individuals with major depressive disorder (SMD=-0.998, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.61, k=20), supervised exercise interventions (SMD=-1.026, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.77, k=40) and moderate effects when analyses were restricted to low risk of bias studies (SMD=-0.666, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.34, k=12, NNT=2.8 (95% CI 1.94 to 5.22)).
CONCLUSION
Exercise is efficacious in treating depression and depressive symptoms and should be offered as an evidence-based treatment option focusing on supervised and group exercise with moderate intensity and aerobic exercise regimes. The small sample sizes of many trials and high heterogeneity in methods should be considered when interpreting the results.
Topics: Humans; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Exercise; Exercise Therapy
PubMed: 36731907
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-106282 -
Lancet (London, England) Nov 2021Before 2020, mental disorders were leading causes of the global health-related burden, with depressive and anxiety disorders being leading contributors to this burden....
BACKGROUND
Before 2020, mental disorders were leading causes of the global health-related burden, with depressive and anxiety disorders being leading contributors to this burden. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment where many determinants of poor mental health are exacerbated. The need for up-to-date information on the mental health impacts of COVID-19 in a way that informs health system responses is imperative. In this study, we aimed to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence and burden of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders globally in 2020.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of data reporting the prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic and published between Jan 1, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, preprint servers, grey literature sources, and consulted experts. Eligible studies reported prevalence of depressive or anxiety disorders that were representative of the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic and had a pre-pandemic baseline. We used the assembled data in a meta-regression to estimate change in the prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders between pre-pandemic and mid-pandemic (using periods as defined by each study) via COVID-19 impact indicators (human mobility, daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, and daily excess mortality rate). We then used this model to estimate the change from pre-pandemic prevalence (estimated using Disease Modelling Meta-Regression version 2.1 [known as DisMod-MR 2.1]) by age, sex, and location. We used final prevalence estimates and disability weights to estimate years lived with disability and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders.
FINDINGS
We identified 5683 unique data sources, of which 48 met inclusion criteria (46 studies met criteria for major depressive disorder and 27 for anxiety disorders). Two COVID-19 impact indicators, specifically daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and reductions in human mobility, were associated with increased prevalence of major depressive disorder (regression coefficient [B] 0·9 [95% uncertainty interval 0·1 to 1·8; p=0·029] for human mobility, 18·1 [7·9 to 28·3; p=0·0005] for daily SARS-CoV-2 infection) and anxiety disorders (0·9 [0·1 to 1·7; p=0·022] and 13·8 [10·7 to 17·0; p<0·0001]. Females were affected more by the pandemic than males (B 0·1 [0·1 to 0·2; p=0·0001] for major depressive disorder, 0·1 [0·1 to 0·2; p=0·0001] for anxiety disorders) and younger age groups were more affected than older age groups (-0·007 [-0·009 to -0·006; p=0·0001] for major depressive disorder, -0·003 [-0·005 to -0·002; p=0·0001] for anxiety disorders). We estimated that the locations hit hardest by the pandemic in 2020, as measured with decreased human mobility and daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, had the greatest increases in prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. We estimated an additional 53·2 million (44·8 to 62·9) cases of major depressive disorder globally (an increase of 27·6% [25·1 to 30·3]) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, such that the total prevalence was 3152·9 cases (2722·5 to 3654·5) per 100 000 population. We also estimated an additional 76·2 million (64·3 to 90·6) cases of anxiety disorders globally (an increase of 25·6% [23·2 to 28·0]), such that the total prevalence was 4802·4 cases (4108·2 to 5588·6) per 100 000 population. Altogether, major depressive disorder caused 49·4 million (33·6 to 68·7) DALYs and anxiety disorders caused 44·5 million (30·2 to 62·5) DALYs globally in 2020.
INTERPRETATION
This pandemic has created an increased urgency to strengthen mental health systems in most countries. Mitigation strategies could incorporate ways to promote mental wellbeing and target determinants of poor mental health and interventions to treat those with a mental disorder. Taking no action to address the burden of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders should not be an option.
FUNDING
Queensland Health, National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; COVID-19; Depression; Global Burden of Disease; Global Health; Humans; Pandemics; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 34634250
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02143-7 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Jan 2021Ketamine appears to have a therapeutic role in certain mental disorders, most notably depression. However, the comparative performance of different formulations of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ketamine appears to have a therapeutic role in certain mental disorders, most notably depression. However, the comparative performance of different formulations of ketamine is less clear.
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and tolerability of racemic and esketamine for the treatment of unipolar and bipolar major depression.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant studies published since database inception and December 17, 2019.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We considered randomized controlled trials examining racemic or esketamine for the treatment of unipolar or bipolar major depression.
OUTCOMES
Primary outcomes were response and remission from depression, change in depression severity, suicidality, retention in treatment, drop-outs, and drop-outs due to adverse events.
ANALYSIS
Evidence from randomized controlled trials was synthesized as rate ratios (RRs) for treatment response, disorder remission, adverse events, and withdrawals and as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for change in symptoms, via random-effects meta-analyses.
FINDINGS
24 trials representing 1877 participants were pooled. Racemic ketamine relative to esketamine demonstrated greater overall response (RR = 3.01 vs. RR = 1.38) and remission rates (RR = 3.70 vs. RR = 1.47), as well as lower dropouts (RR = 0.76 vs. RR = 1.37).
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous ketamine appears to be more efficacious than intranasal esketamine for the treatment of depression.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Ketamine
PubMed: 33022440
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.09.071 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Jul 2020Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice; however, available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions is inconclusive. Therefore, we sought to compare and rank all available treatment interventions for the acute treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest, CINAHL, LiLACS, international trial registries, and the websites of regulatory agencies for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials from database inception until Jan 1, 2019. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 16 antidepressants, seven psychotherapies, and five combinations of antidepressant and psychotherapy that are used for the acute treatment of children and adolescents (≤18 years old and of both sexes) with depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of fewer than ten patients were excluded. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcome measures, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using validated methods. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to any cause). We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with credible intervals (CrIs) using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020841.
FINDINGS
From 20 366 publications, we included 71 trials (9510 participants). Depressive disorders in most studies were moderate to severe. In terms of efficacy, fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more effective than CBT alone (-0·78, 95% CrI -1·55 to -0·01) and psychodynamic therapy (-1·14, -2·20 to -0·08), but not more effective than fluoxetine alone (-0·22, -0·86 to 0·42). No pharmacotherapy alone was more effective than psychotherapy alone. Only fluoxetine plus CBT and fluoxetine were significantly more effective than pill placebo or psychological controls (SMDs ranged from -1·73 to -0·51); and only interpersonal therapy was more effective than all psychological controls (-1·37 to -0·66). Nortriptyline (SMDs ranged from 1·04 to 2·22) and waiting list (SMDs ranged from 0·67 to 2·08) were less effective than most active interventions. In terms of acceptability, nefazodone and fluoxetine were associated with fewer dropouts than sertraline, imipramine, and desipramine (ORs ranged from 0·17 to 0·50); imipramine was associated with more dropouts than pill placebo, desvenlafaxine, fluoxetine plus CBT, and vilazodone (2·51 to 5·06). Most of the results were rated as "low" to "very low" in terms of confidence of evidence according to Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis.
INTERPRETATION
Despite the scarcity of high-quality evidence, fluoxetine (alone or in combination with CBT) seems to be the best choice for the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depressive disorder in children and adolescents. However, the effects of these interventions might vary between individuals, so patients, carers, and clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of efficacy, acceptability, and suicide risk of all active interventions in young patients with depression on a case-by-case basis.
FUNDING
National Key Research and Development Program of China.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents; Child; Depressive Disorder; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32563306
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30137-1 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Apr 2022To compare the efficacy and discontinuation of augmentation agents in adult patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). We conducted a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and discontinuation of augmentation agents in adult patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMA) to combine direct and indirect comparisons of augmentation agents.
METHODS
We included randomized controlled trials comparing one active drug with another or with placebo following a treatment course up to 24 weeks. Nineteen agents were included: stimulants, atypical antipsychotics, thyroid hormones, antidepressants, and mood stabilizers. Data for response/remission and all-cause discontinuation rates were analyzed. We estimated effect-size by relative risk using pairwise and NMA with random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 65 studies (N = 12,415) with 19 augmentation agents were included in the NMA. Our findings from the NMA for response rates, compared to placebo, were significant for: liothyronine, nortriptyline, aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, quetiapine, lithium, modafinil, olanzapine (fluoxetine), cariprazine, and lisdexamfetamine. For remission rates, compared to placebo, were significant for: thyroid hormone(T4), aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, and olanzapine (fluoxetine). Compared to placebo, ziprasidone, mirtazapine, and cariprazine had statistically significant higher discontinuation rates. Overall, 24% studies were rated as having low risk of bias (RoB), 63% had moderate RoB and 13% had high RoB.
LIMITATIONS
Heterogeneity in TRD definitions, variable trial duration and methodological clinical design of older studies and small number of trials per comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS
This NMA suggests a superiority of the regulatory approved adjunctive atypical antipsychotics, thyroid hormones, dopamine compounds (modafinil and lisdexamfetamine) and lithium. Acceptability was lower with ziprasidone, mirtazapine, and cariprazine. Further research and head-to-head studies should be considered to strengthen the best available options for TRD.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 34986373
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.134 -
Molecular Psychiatry Jan 2023A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to treat adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the maintenance phase. This study searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases and included only double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with an enrichment design: patients were stabilized on the antidepressant of interest during the open-label study and then randomized to receive the same antidepressant or placebo. The outcomes were the 6-month relapse rate (primary outcome, efficacy), all-cause discontinuation (acceptability), discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), and the incidence of individual adverse events. The risk ratio with a 95% credible interval was calculated. The meta-analysis comprised 34 studies (n = 9384, mean age = 43.80 years, and %females = 68.10%) on 20 antidepressants (agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine) and a placebo. In terms of the 6-month relapse rate, amitriptyline, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, sertraline had a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Compared to placebo, venlafaxine was associated with a lower incidence of dizziness, while desvenlafaxine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were associated with a higher incidence of nausea/vomiting. In conclusion, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had reasonable efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability in the treatment of adults with stable MDD.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adult; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Sertraline; Citalopram; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine; Fluoxetine; Paroxetine; Mirtazapine; Amitriptyline; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Fluvoxamine; Reboxetine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36253442
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01824-z -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Feb 2024To identify the optimal dose and modality of exercise for treating major depressive disorder, compared with psychotherapy, antidepressants, and control conditions. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To identify the optimal dose and modality of exercise for treating major depressive disorder, compared with psychotherapy, antidepressants, and control conditions.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Screening, data extraction, coding, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Bayesian arm based, multilevel network meta-analyses were performed for the primary analyses. Quality of the evidence for each arm was graded using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) online tool.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO databases.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Any randomised trial with exercise arms for participants meeting clinical cut-offs for major depression.
RESULTS
218 unique studies with a total of 495 arms and 14 170 participants were included. Compared with active controls (eg, usual care, placebo tablet), moderate reductions in depression were found for walking or jogging (n=1210, κ=51, Hedges' g -0.62, 95% credible interval -0.80 to -0.45), yoga (n=1047, κ=33, g -0.55, -0.73 to -0.36), strength training (n=643, κ=22, g -0.49, -0.69 to -0.29), mixed aerobic exercises (n=1286, κ=51, g -0.43, -0.61 to -0.24), and tai chi or qigong (n=343, κ=12, g -0.42, -0.65 to -0.21). The effects of exercise were proportional to the intensity prescribed. Strength training and yoga appeared to be the most acceptable modalities. Results appeared robust to publication bias, but only one study met the Cochrane criteria for low risk of bias. As a result, confidence in accordance with CINeMA was low for walking or jogging and very low for other treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Exercise is an effective treatment for depression, with walking or jogging, yoga, and strength training more effective than other exercises, particularly when intense. Yoga and strength training were well tolerated compared with other treatments. Exercise appeared equally effective for people with and without comorbidities and with different baseline levels of depression. To mitigate expectancy effects, future studies could aim to blind participants and staff. These forms of exercise could be considered alongside psychotherapy and antidepressants as core treatments for depression.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018118040.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Bayes Theorem; Exercise; Antidepressive Agents; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38355154
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-075847 -
JAMA Psychiatry Dec 2022Whether ketamine is as effective as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) among patients with major depressive episode remains unknown. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Whether ketamine is as effective as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) among patients with major depressive episode remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and meta-analyze data about clinical efficacy and safety for ketamine and ECT in patients with major depressive episode.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase were systematically searched using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text keywords from database inception through April 19, 2022, with no language limits. Two authors also manually and independently searched all relevant studies in US and European clinical trial registries and Google Scholar.
STUDY SELECTION
Included were studies that involved (1) a diagnosis of depression using standardized diagnostic criteria, (2) intervention/comparator groups consisting of ECT and ketamine, and (3) depressive symptoms as an efficacy outcome using standardized measures.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction was completed independently by 2 extractors and cross-checked for errors. Hedges g standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used for improvement in depressive symptoms. SMDs with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using fixed- or random-effects models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Efficacy outcomes included depression severity, cognition, and memory performance. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events (eg, suicide attempts and deaths) and other adverse events.
RESULTS
Six clinical trials comprising 340 patients (n = 162 for ECT and n = 178 for ketamine) were included in the review. Six of 6 studies enrolled patients who were eligible to receive ECT, 6 studies were conducted in inpatient settings, and 5 studies were randomized clinical trials. The overall pooled SMD for depression symptoms for ECT when compared with ketamine was -0.69 (95% CI, -0.89 to -0.48; Cochran Q, P = .15; I2 = 39%), suggesting an efficacy advantage for ECT compared with ketamine for depression severity. Significant differences were not observed between groups for studies that assessed cognition/memory or serious adverse events. Both ketamine and ECT had unique adverse effect profiles (ie, ketamine: lower risks for headache and muscle pain; ECT: lower risks for blurred vision, vertigo, diplopia/nystagmus, and transient dissociative/depersonalization symptoms). Limitations included low to moderate methodological quality and underpowered study designs.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that ECT may be superior to ketamine for improving depression severity in the acute phase, but treatment options should be individualized and patient-centered.
Topics: Humans; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Ketamine; Depressive Disorder, Major; Suicide, Attempted; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36260324
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.3352 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jul 2019With growing interest in the gut microbiome, prebiotics and probiotics have received considerable attention as potential treatments for depression and anxiety. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
With growing interest in the gut microbiome, prebiotics and probiotics have received considerable attention as potential treatments for depression and anxiety. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of 34 controlled clinical trials evaluating the effects of prebiotics and probiotics on depression and anxiety. Prebiotics did not differ from placebo for depression (d = -.08, p = .51) or anxiety (d = .12, p = .11). Probiotics yielded small but significant effects for depression (d = -.24, p < .01) and anxiety (d = -.10, p = .03). Sample type was a moderator for probiotics and depression, with a larger effect observed for clinical/medical samples (d = -.45, p < .001) than community ones. This effect increased to medium-to-large in a preliminary analysis restricted to psychiatric samples (d = -.73, p < .001). There is general support for antidepressant and anxiolytic effects of probiotics, but the pooled effects were reduced by the paucity of trials with clinical samples. Additional randomized clinical trials with psychiatric samples are necessary fully to evaluate their therapeutic potential.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Prebiotics; Probiotics
PubMed: 31004628
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.023