-
Phytotherapy Research : PTR May 2018Anxiety and depression are prevalent among cancer patients, with significant negative impact. Many patients prefer herbs for symptom relief to conventional medications... (Review)
Review
Anxiety and depression are prevalent among cancer patients, with significant negative impact. Many patients prefer herbs for symptom relief to conventional medications which have limited efficacy/side effects. We identified single-herb medicines that may warrant further study in cancer patients. Our search included PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Embase, and Cochrane databases, selecting only single-herb randomized controlled trials between 1996 and 2016 in any population for data extraction, excluding herbs with known potential for interactions with cancer treatments. One hundred articles involving 38 botanicals met our criteria. Among herbs most studied (≥6 randomized controlled trials each), lavender, passionflower, and saffron produced benefits comparable to standard anxiolytics and antidepressants. Black cohosh, chamomile, and chasteberry are also promising. Anxiety or depressive symptoms were measured in all studies, but not always as primary endpoints. Overall, 45% of studies reported positive findings with fewer adverse effects compared with conventional medications. Based on available data, black cohosh, chamomile, chasteberry, lavender, passionflower, and saffron appear useful in mitigating anxiety or depression with favorable risk-benefit profiles compared to standard treatments. These may benefit cancer patients by minimizing medication load and accompanying side effects. However, well-designed larger clinical trials are needed before these herbs can be recommended and to further assess their psycho-oncologic relevance.
Topics: Anti-Anxiety Agents; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Combined Modality Therapy; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Herbal Medicine; Humans; Neoplasms; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Plants, Medicinal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29464801
DOI: 10.1002/ptr.6033 -
Current Neuropharmacology 2015
Review
Topics: Animals; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Sleep
PubMed: 26412067
DOI: 10.2174/1570159x1304150831123535 -
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 -
Evidence-based Medicine Dec 2016The comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments of depression remains unclear. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments of depression remains unclear.
METHODS
We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy and adverse effects of non-pharmacological treatments of depression. We searched multiple electronic databases through February 2016 without language restrictions. Pairs of reviewers determined eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted when appropriate.
RESULT
We included 367 RCTs enrolling ∼20 000 patients treated with 11 treatments leading to 17 unique head-to-head comparisons. Cognitive behavioural therapy, naturopathic therapy, biological interventions and physical activity interventions reduced depression severity as measured using standardised scales. However, the relative efficacy among these non-pharmacological interventions was lacking. The effect of these interventions on clinical response and remission was unclear. Adverse events were lower than antidepressants.
LIMITATION
The quality of evidence was low to moderate due to inconsistency and unclear or high risk of bias, limiting our confidence in findings.
CONCLUSIONS
Non-pharmacological therapies of depression reduce depression symptoms and should be considered along with antidepressant therapy for the treatment of mild-to-severe depression. A shared decision-making approach is needed to choose between non-pharmacological therapies based on values, preferences, clinical and social context.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27836921
DOI: 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110522 -
Nicotine & Tobacco Research : Official... Jan 2017Many studies report a positive association between smoking and mental illness. However, the literature remains mixed regarding the direction of this association. We... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many studies report a positive association between smoking and mental illness. However, the literature remains mixed regarding the direction of this association. We therefore conducted a systematic review evaluating the association of smoking and depression and/or anxiety in longitudinal studies.
METHODS
Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science and were included if they: (1) used human participants, (2) were longitudinal, (3) reported primary data, (4) had smoking as an exposure and depression and/or anxiety as an outcome, or (5) had depression and/or anxiety as the exposure and smoking as an outcome.
RESULTS
Outcomes from 148 studies were categorized into: smoking onset, smoking status, smoking heaviness, tobacco dependence, and smoking trajectory. The results for each category varied substantially, with evidence for positive associations in both directions (smoking to later mental health and mental health to later smoking) as well as null findings. Overall, nearly half the studies reported that baseline depression/anxiety was associated with some type of later smoking behavior, while over a third found evidence that a smoking exposure was associated with later depression/anxiety. However, there were few studies directly supporting a bidirectional model of smoking and anxiety, and very few studies reporting null results.
CONCLUSIONS
The literature on the prospective association between smoking and depression and anxiety is inconsistent in terms of the direction of association most strongly supported. This suggests the need for future studies that employ different methodologies, such as Mendelian randomization (MR), which will allow us to draw stronger causal inferences.
IMPLICATIONS
We systematically reviewed longitudinal studies on the association of different aspects of smoking behavior with depression and anxiety. The results varied considerably, with evidence for smoking both associated with subsequent depression and anxiety, and vice versa. Few studies supported a bidirectional relationship, or reported null results, and no clear patterns by gender, ethnicity, clinical status, length to follow-up, or diagnostic test. Suggesting that despite advantages of longitudinal studies, they cannot alone provide strong evidence of causality. Therefore, future studies investigating this association should employ different methods allowing for stronger causal inferences to be made, such as MR.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Prospective Studies; Sex Characteristics; Smoking; Tobacco Use Disorder
PubMed: 27199385
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntw140 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2022An emerging body of literature demonstrates differences in the gut microbiome (GMB) of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to healthy controls (HC),... (Review)
Review
An emerging body of literature demonstrates differences in the gut microbiome (GMB) of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to healthy controls (HC), as well as the potential benefits of prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic treatment. We conducted a systematic review of 24 observational studies (n = 2817), and 19 interventional trials (n = 1119). We assessed alpha diversity, beta diversity, and taxa abundance changes in patients with MDD relative to HC, as well as the effect of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics on depressive symptoms in individuals with clinical or subclinical depression. We observed no significant differences in alpha diversity but a significant difference in beta diversity between patients with MDD and HC. There were fluctuations in the abundance of specific taxa in patients with MDD relative to HC. Probiotic and synbiotic, but not prebiotic, treatment showed a modest benefit in reducing depressive symptoms in patients with MDD over four to nine weeks. The GMB profiles of patients with MDD differ significantly from HC, but further studies are needed to elucidate the benefits of prebiotic, probiotic and synbiotic treatments relative to antidepressants and over longer follow-up before these therapies are implemented into clinical practice.
Topics: Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Synbiotics
PubMed: 35562885
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23094494 -
Clinical Psychology Review Feb 2017Depression and anxiety often emerge for the first time during youth. The school environment provides an ideal context to deliver prevention programs, with potential to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Depression and anxiety often emerge for the first time during youth. The school environment provides an ideal context to deliver prevention programs, with potential to offset the trajectory towards disorder. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of randomised-controlled trials of psychological programs, designed to prevent depression and/or anxiety in children and adolescents delivered in school settings. Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles published until February 2015. Eighty-one unique studies comprising 31,794 school students met inclusion criteria. Small effect sizes for both depression (g=0.23) and anxiety (g=0.20) prevention programs immediately post-intervention were detected. Small effects were evident after 12-month follow-up for both depression (g=0.11) and anxiety (g=0.13). Overall, the quality of the included studies was poor, and heterogeneity was moderate. Subgroup analyses suggested that universal depression prevention programs had smaller effect sizes at post-test relative to targeted programs. For anxiety, effect sizes were comparable for universal and targeted programs. There was some evidence that externally-delivered interventions were superior to those delivered by school staff for depression, but not anxiety. Meta-regression confirmed that targeted programs predicted larger effect sizes for the prevention of depression. These results suggest that the refinement of school-based prevention programs have the potential to reduce mental health burden and advance public health outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adolescent Health Services; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Child; Child Health Services; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Mental Health Services; Program Evaluation; Schools
PubMed: 27821267
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.005 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Oct 2017Multimorbidity, the presence of two or more chronic conditions, is increasingly common and complicates the assessment and management of depression. The aim was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multimorbidity, the presence of two or more chronic conditions, is increasingly common and complicates the assessment and management of depression. The aim was to investigate the relationship between multimorbidity and depression.
METHOD
A systematic literature search was conducted using the databases; PsychINFO, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Central. Results were meta-analysed to determine risk for a depressive disorder or depressive symptoms in people with multimorbidity.
RESULTS
Forty articles were identified as eligible (n = 381527). The risk for depressive disorder was twice as great for people with multimorbidity compared to those without multimorbidity [RR: 2.13 (95% CI 1.62-2.80) p<0.001] and three times greater for people with multimorbidity compared to those without any chronic physical condition [RR: 2.97 (95% CI 2.06-4.27) p<0.001]. There was a 45% greater odds of having a depressive disorder with each additional chronic condition compared to the odds of having a depressive disorder with no chronic physical condition [OR: 1.45 (95% CI 1.28-1.64) p<0.001]. A significant but weak association was found between the number of chronic conditions and depressive symptoms [r = 0.26 (95% CI 0.18-0.33) p <0.001].
LIMITATIONS
Although valid measures of depression were used in these studies, the majority assessed the presence or absence of multimorbidity by self-report measures.
CONCLUSIONS
Depression is two to three times more likely in people with multimorbidity compared to people without multimorbidity or those who have no chronic physical condition. Greater knowledge of this risk supports identification and management of depression.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Multimorbidity; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28628766
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.06.009 -
Nutrients Aug 2016It has been reported that gut probiotics play a major role in the bidirectional communication between the gut and the brain. Probiotics may be essential to people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
It has been reported that gut probiotics play a major role in the bidirectional communication between the gut and the brain. Probiotics may be essential to people with depression, which remains a global health challenge, as depression is a metabolic brain disorder. However, the efficacy of probiotics for depression is controversial. This study aimed to systematically review the existing evidence on the effect of probiotics-based interventions on depression. Randomized, controlled trials, identified through screening multiple databases and grey literature, were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software using a fixed-effects model. The meta-analysis showed that probiotics significantly decreased the depression scale score (MD (depressive disorder) = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.51--0.09), p = 0.005) in the subjects. Probiotics had an effect on both the healthy population (MD = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.47--0.03), p = 0.03) and patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) (MD = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.37--0.09), p = 0.03). Probiotics had an effect on the population aged under 60 (MD = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.72--0.13), p = 0.005), while it had no effect on people aged over 65 (MD = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47-0.11), p = 0.22). This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis with the goal of determining the effect of probiotics on depression. We found that probiotics were associated with a significant reduction in depression, underscoring the need for additional research on this potential preventive strategy for depression.
Topics: Adult; Age Factors; Animals; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Dysbiosis; Evidence-Based Medicine; Global Health; Humans; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk
PubMed: 27509521
DOI: 10.3390/nu8080483 -
BMJ Open Aug 2017Depression and depressive symptoms are common mental disorders that have a considerable effect on patients' health-related quality of life and satisfaction with medical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Depression and depressive symptoms are common mental disorders that have a considerable effect on patients' health-related quality of life and satisfaction with medical care, but the prevalence of these conditions varies substantially between published studies. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a precise estimate of the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms among outpatients in different clinical specialties.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
The PubMed and PsycINFO, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify observational studies that contained information on the prevalence of depression and depressive symptoms in outpatients. All studies included were published before January 2016. Data characteristics were extracted independently by two investigators. The point prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was measured using validated self-report questionnaires or structured interviews. Assessments were pooled using a random-effects model. Differences in study-level characteristics were estimated by meta-regression analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using standard χ tests and the I statistic. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO under number CRD42017054738.
RESULTS
Eighty-three cross-sectional studies involving 41 344 individuals were included in this study. The overall pooled prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 27.0% (10 943/41 344 individuals; 95% CI 24.0% to 29.0%), with significant heterogeneity between studies (p<0.0001, τ=0.3742, I=96.7%). Notably, a significantly higher prevalence of depression and depressive symptoms was observed in outpatients than in the healthy controls (OR 3.16, 95% CI 2.66 to 3.76, I=72.0%, χ =25.33). The highest depression/depressive symptom prevalence estimates occurred in studies of outpatients from otolaryngology clinics (53.0%), followed by dermatology clinics (39.0%) and neurology clinics (35.0%). Subgroup analyses showed that the prevalence of depression and depressive symptoms in different specialties varied from 17.0% to 53.0%. The prevalence of depression and depressive symptoms was higher among outpatients in developing countries than in outpatients from developed countries. Moreover, the prevalence of depression and depressive symptoms in outpatients slightly decreased from 1996 to 2010. Regarding screening instruments, the Beck Depression Inventory led to a higher estimate of the prevalence of depression and depressive symptoms (1316/4702, 36.0%, 95% CI 29.0% to 44.0%, I=94.8%) than the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (1003/2025, 22.0%, 95% CI 12.0% to 35.0%, I=96.6%).
CONCLUSION
Our study provides evidence that a significant proportion of outpatients experience depression or depressive symptoms, highlighting the importance of developing effective management strategies for the early identification and treatment of these conditions among outpatients in clinical practice. The substantial heterogeneity between studies was not fully explained by the variables examined.
Topics: Depression; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Outpatients; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Quality of Life
PubMed: 28838903
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017173