-
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ProQuest, CINAHL, LiLACS, international trial registries, and the websites of regulatory agencies for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials from database inception until Jan 1, 2019.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 -
JAMA Psychiatry Feb 2021Several psychotherapy protocols have been evaluated as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for patients with bipolar disorder, but little is known about their comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Several psychotherapy protocols have been evaluated as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for patients with bipolar disorder, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE
To use systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the association of using manualized psychotherapies and therapy components with reducing recurrences and stabilizing symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder.
DATA SOURCES
Major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews) and trial registries were searched from inception to June 1, 2019, for randomized clinical trials of psychotherapy for bipolar disorder.
STUDY SELECTION
Of 3255 abstracts, 39 randomized clinical trials were identified that compared pharmacotherapy plus manualized psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy plus a control intervention (eg, supportive therapy or treatment as usual) for patients with bipolar disorder.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Binary outcomes (recurrence and study retention) were compared across treatments using odds ratios (ORs). For depression or mania severity scores, data were pooled and compared across treatments using standardized mean differences (SMDs) (Hedges-adjusted g using weighted pooled SDs). In component network meta-analyses, the incremental effectiveness of 13 specific therapy components was examined.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was illness recurrence. Secondary outcomes were depressive and manic symptoms at 12 months and acceptability of treatment (study retention).
RESULTS
A total of 39 randomized clinical trials with 3863 participants (2247 of 3693 [60.8%] with data on sex were female; mean [SD] age, 36.5 [8.2] years) were identified. Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized treatments were associated with lower recurrence rates than control treatments (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74). Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was associated with reducing recurrences vs the same strategies in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94). Cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.01) and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -1.01 to 0.08) and interpersonal therapy (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -1.07 to 0.15) were associated with stabilizing depressive symptoms compared with treatment as usual. Higher study retention was associated with family or conjoint therapy (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.82) and brief psychoeducation (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85) compared with standard psychoeducation.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study suggests that outpatients with bipolar disorder may benefit from skills-based psychosocial interventions combined with pharmacotherapy. Conclusions are tempered by heterogeneity in populations, treatment duration, and follow-up.
Topics: Adult; Bipolar Disorder; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychotherapy
PubMed: 33052390
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.2993 -
JAMA Psychiatry Jul 2020It is not clear whether psychotherapies for depression have comparable effects across the life span. Finding out is important from a clinical and scientific perspective. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
It is not clear whether psychotherapies for depression have comparable effects across the life span. Finding out is important from a clinical and scientific perspective.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of psychotherapies for depression between different age groups.
DATA SOURCES
Four major bibliographic databases (PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for trials comparing psychotherapy with control conditions up to January 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials comparing psychotherapies for depression with control conditions in all age groups were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Effect sizes (Hedges g) were calculated for all comparisons and pooled with random-effects models. Differences in effects between age groups were examined with mixed-effects subgroup analyses and in meta-regression analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Depressive symptoms were the primary outcome.
RESULTS
After removing duplicates, 16 756 records were screened and 2608 full-text articles were screened. Of these, 366 trials (36 702 patients) with 453 comparisons between a therapy and a control condition were included in the qualitative analysis, including 13 (3.6%) in children (13 years and younger), 24 (6.6%) in adolescents (≥13 to 18 years), 19 (5.2%) in young adults (≥18 to 24 years), 242 (66.1%) in middle-aged adults (≥24 to 55 years), 58 (15.8%) in older adults (≥55 to 75 years), and 10 (2.7%) in older old adults (75 years and older). The overall effect size of all comparisons across all age groups was g = 0.75 (95% CI, 0.67-0.82), with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 80%; 95% CI: 78-82). Mean effect sizes for depressive symptoms in children (g = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.55) and adolescents (g = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75) were significantly lower than those in middle-aged adults (g = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.87). The effect sizes in young adults (g = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16) were significantly larger than those in middle-aged adults. No significant difference was found between older adults (g = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.82) and those in older old adults (g = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.42-1.52). The outcomes should be considered with caution because of the suboptimal quality of most of the studies and the high levels of heterogeneity. However, most primary findings proved robust across sensitivity analyses, addressing risk of bias, target populations included, type of therapy, diagnosis of mood disorder, and method of data analysis.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Trials included in this meta-analysis reported effect sizes of psychotherapies that were smaller in children than in adults, probably also smaller in adolescents, that the effects may be somewhat larger in young adults, and without meaningful differences between middle-aged adults, older adults, and older old adults.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Psychotherapy; Young Adult
PubMed: 32186668
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0164 -
Journal of Consulting and Clinical... Nov 2017This meta-analysis examined the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for eating disorders. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis examined the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for eating disorders.
METHOD
Randomized controlled trials of CBT were searched. Seventy-nine trials were included.
RESULTS
Therapist-led CBT was more efficacious than inactive (wait-lists) and active (any psychotherapy) comparisons in individuals with bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder. Therapist-led CBT was most efficacious when manualized CBT-BN or its enhanced version was delivered. No significant differences were observed between therapist-led CBT for bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder and antidepressants at posttreatment. CBT was also directly compared to other specific psychological interventions, and therapist-led CBT resulted in greater reductions in behavioral and cognitive symptoms than interpersonal psychotherapy at posttreatment. At follow-up, CBT outperformed interpersonal psychotherapy only on cognitive symptoms. CBT for binge eating disorder also resulted in greater reductions in behavioral symptoms than behavioral weight loss interventions. There was no evidence that CBT was more efficacious than behavior therapy or nonspecific supportive therapies.
CONCLUSIONS
CBT is efficacious for eating disorders. Although CBT was equally efficacious to certain psychological treatments, the fact that CBT outperformed all active psychological comparisons and interpersonal psychotherapy specifically, offers some support for the specificity of psychological treatments for eating disorders. Conclusions from this study are hampered by the fact that many trials were of poor quality. Higher quality RCTs are essential. (PsycINFO Database Record
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Binge-Eating Disorder; Bulimia Nervosa; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Psychotherapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29083223
DOI: 10.1037/ccp0000245 -
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy Jan 2017This article presents a systematic review of the process research on solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT). We searched published and unpublished studies in English... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This article presents a systematic review of the process research on solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT). We searched published and unpublished studies in English across five databases, five major journals, two book chapters, and four websites to locate studies that investigate why and how SFBT works. Thirty-three studies that used various research methods were located and included for further analysis using a meta-summary approach. The findings supported the significance of the co-construction process within SFBT and the effects of specific types of SFBT techniques. The most empirical support was found for the strength-oriented techniques in comparison to the other techniques and for the co-construction of meaning. Current studies require replications with larger samples and experimental designs that study SFBT process in relationship to outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Psychotherapeutic Processes; Psychotherapy, Brief
PubMed: 27757976
DOI: 10.1111/jmft.12193 -
Nature Human Behaviour May 2021Our current understanding of the efficacy of psychological interventions in improving mental states of wellbeing is incomplete. This study aimed to overcome limitations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Our current understanding of the efficacy of psychological interventions in improving mental states of wellbeing is incomplete. This study aimed to overcome limitations of previous reviews by examining the efficacy of distinct types of psychological interventions, irrespective of their theoretical underpinning, and the impact of various moderators, in a unified systematic review and meta-analysis. Four-hundred-and-nineteen randomized controlled trials from clinical and non-clinical populations (n = 53,288) were identified for inclusion. Mindfulness-based and multi-component positive psychological interventions demonstrated the greatest efficacy in both clinical and non-clinical populations. Meta-analyses also found that singular positive psychological interventions, cognitive and behavioural therapy-based, acceptance and commitment therapy-based, and reminiscence interventions were impactful. Effect sizes were moderate at best, but differed according to target population and moderator, most notably intervention intensity. The evidence quality was generally low to moderate. While the evidence requires further advancement, the review provides insight into how psychological interventions can be designed to improve mental wellbeing.
Topics: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; Behavior Therapy; Humans; Mental Health; Psychosocial Intervention; Psychotherapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33875837
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-021-01093-w -
Psychological Medicine Jun 2023A broad range of psychotherapies have been proposed and evaluated in the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD), but the question which specific type of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Which psychotherapy is most effective and acceptable in the treatment of adults with a (sub)clinical borderline personality disorder? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
A broad range of psychotherapies have been proposed and evaluated in the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD), but the question which specific type of psychotherapy is most effective remains unanswered. In this study, two network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted investigating the comparative effectiveness of psychotherapies on (1) BPD severity and (2) suicidal behaviour (combined rate). Study drop-out was included as a secondary outcome. Six databases were searched until 21 January 2022, including RCTs on the efficacy of any psychotherapy in adults (⩾18 years) with a diagnosis of (sub)clinical BPD. Data were extracted using a predefined table format. PROSPERO ID:CRD42020175411. In our study, a total of 43 studies ( = 3273) were included. We found significant differences between several active comparisons in the treatment of (sub)clinical BPD, however, these findings were based on very few trials and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Some therapies were more efficacious compared to GT or TAU. Furthermore, some treatments more than halved the risk of attempted suicide and committed suicide (combined rate), reporting RRs around 0.5 or lower, however, these RRs were not statistically significantly better compared to other therapies or to TAU. Study drop-out significantly differed between some treatments. In conclusion, no single treatment seems to be the best choice to treat people with BPD compared to other treatments. Nevertheless, psychotherapies for BPD are perceived as first-line treatments, and should therefore be investigated further on their long-term effectiveness, preferably in head-to-head trials. DBT was the best connected treatment, providing solid evidence of its effectiveness.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Borderline Personality Disorder; Psychotherapy; Suicide, Attempted; Suicidal Ideation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37203447
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291723000685 -
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue... Nov 2014Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI), the deliberate, self-inflicted damage of bodily tissue without the intent to die, is associated with various negative outcomes. Although... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI), the deliberate, self-inflicted damage of bodily tissue without the intent to die, is associated with various negative outcomes. Although basic and epidemiologic research on NSSI has increased during the last 2 decades, literature on effective interventions targeting NSSI is still emerging. Here, we present a comprehensive, systematic review of existing psychological and pharmacological treatments designed specifically for NSSI, or including outcome assessments examining change in NSSI.
METHOD
We conducted a systematic search of PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and ERIC databases to retrieve relevant articles that met inclusion criteria; specifically, uncontrolled and controlled trials that 1) presented quantitative outcome data on NSSI, and 2) clearly differentiated NSSI from suicidal self-injury (SSI). Consistent with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, definition of NSSI, we excluded studies examining populations with developmental or intellectual disabilities, or with psychotic disorders.
RESULTS
Several interventions appear to hold promise for reducing NSSI, including dialectical behaviour therapy, emotion regulation group therapy, manual-assisted cognitive therapy, dynamic deconstructive psychotherapy, atypical antipsychotics (aripiprazole), naltrexone, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (with or without cognitive-behavioural therapy). Nevertheless, there remains a paucity of well-controlled studies investigating treatment efficacy for NSSI.
CONCLUSIONS
Structured psychotherapeutic approaches focusing on collaborative therapeutic relationships, motivation for change, and directly addressing NSSI behaviours seem to be most effective in reducing NSSI. Medications targeting the serotonergic, dopaminergic and opioid systems also have demonstrated some benefits. Future studies employing controlled designs as well as a clear delineation of NSSI and SSI will improve knowledge regarding treatment effects.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Borderline Personality Disorder; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Psychotherapy; Psychotherapy, Group; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self-Injurious Behavior; Suicide, Attempted; Theory of Mind; Young Adult
PubMed: 25565473
DOI: 10.1177/070674371405901103 -
Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry Apr 2023To systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness of family therapy compared to other active treatments for adolescents with depressive disorders or suicidal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness of family therapy compared to other active treatments for adolescents with depressive disorders or suicidal ideation.
METHOD
We conducted a systematic search of The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL and Web of Science and performed two meta-analyses of outcomes for depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation.
RESULTS
We screened 5,940 records and identified 10 randomized controlled studies of family therapy for depressive disorder or suicidal ideation in adolescents with an active treatment comparison group. Nine studies reported outcome measures of depressive symptoms and four reported outcome measures of suicidal ideation. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between family therapy and active comparison treatments for end-of-treatment levels of depression. For suicidal ideation our meta-analysis showed a significant effect in favour of family therapy over comparison treatments for suicidal ideation.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current body of research, we found that family therapy is not superior to other psychotherapies in the treatment of depressive disorder. However, family therapy leads to significantly improved outcomes for suicidal ideation, compared to other psychotherapies. The evidence for the treatment of depression is of low quality needs more research.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Suicidal Ideation; Family Therapy; Depression; Psychotherapy; Combined Modality Therapy
PubMed: 36053279
DOI: 10.1177/13591045221125005 -
Clinical Psychology Review Dec 2020The alliance-outcome relationship has been consistently linked to positive treatment outcomes irrespective of psychotherapy modality. However, beyond its general links... (Review)
Review
The alliance-outcome relationship has been consistently linked to positive treatment outcomes irrespective of psychotherapy modality. However, beyond its general links to favorable treatment outcomes, it is less clear whether the alliance is a specific mediator of change and thus a possible mechanism underlying psychotherapy response. This systematic review evaluated research examining the alliance as a potential mediator of symptom change, reviewing study characteristics of 37 relevant articles examining the alliance-outcome relationship and the extent to which these studies met recommended criteria for mechanistic research. Alliance mediated therapeutic outcomes in 70.3% of the studies. We observed significant heterogeneity across studies in terms of methodology, including timing of alliance assessment, study design, constructs used in mediation models, and analytic approaches. Building on recent methodological advancements, we propose directions for future research examining the putative mediational role of alliance, such as greater uniformity in and attention to study design and statistical methodology. This review highlights the importance of alliance in therapeutic change and discusses how adhering to requirements for process research will improve our ability to more precisely estimate how and to what extent alliance drives therapeutic change.
Topics: Humans; Professional-Patient Relations; Psychotherapy; Research Design; Therapeutic Alliance; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33069096
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101921