Dataset Information

Examination of the utility of psychotherapy for patients with treatment resistant depression: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the utility of psychotherapy in managing treatment resistant depression.

Data sources

PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, Cochrane Registry of Controlled Clinical Trials, article bibliographies.

Review methods

Eligible articles had to be in English and include English-speaking adult outpatients from general medical or mental health clinics. Studies had to be randomized clinical trials (RCT) involving at least one of the following psychotherapy modalities: cognitive therapy, interpersonal therapy, or behavior therapy. Patients were considered treatment resistant if they reported partial or no remission following treatment with an adequate antidepressant dose for ≥ 6 weeks. Exclusion criteria included receiving psychotherapy at the time of recruitment, and/or comorbid psychiatric conditions unlikely to be treated outside of specialized mental health care (e.g., severe substance abuse). Due to heterogeneity in study designs, a summary estimate of effect was not calculated. Studies were critically analyzed and a qualitative synthesis was conducted.

Results

Of 941 original titles, 13 articles evaluating 7 unique treatment comparisons were included. Psychotherapy was examined as an augmentation to antidepressants in five studies and as substitution treatment in two studies. A total of 592 patients were evaluated (Mean age ~40 y; Females = 50-85%; Caucasians ≥ 75%). The STAR*D trial used an equipoise stratified randomization design; the remaining studies were RCTs. Compared to active management, two good quality trials showed similar benefit from augmenting antidepressants with psychotherapy; one fair quality and one poor quality trial showed benefit from psychotherapy augmentation; and one good and one poor trial found similar benefit from substituting psychotherapy for antidepressants. One fair quality trial showed lithium augmentation to be more beneficial than psychotherapy.

Conclusions

Review demonstrates the utility of psychotherapy in managing treatment resistant depression. However, evidence is sparse and results are mixed. Given that quality trials are lacking, rigorous clinical trials are recommended to guide practice. In the interim, primary care providers should consider psychotherapy when treating patients with treatment resistant depression.

SUBMITTER: Trivedi RB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3101965 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimMajor depressive disorder is considered one of the most frequent diseases in the general population, and treatment-resistant depression (TRD) represents the subset with more significant clinical and social impact. Large, robust phase III studies have shown safety and efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus SSRI/SNRI antidepressants (ADs) compared with SSRI/SNRI plus placebo nasal spray in patients with TRD. The main aim of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing esketamine plus ADs with ADs alone in TRD patients, from the societal perspective in Italy. A secondary analysis focused on the National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective.MethodsA Markov multistate model has been developed to estimate quality-adjusted life years and economic outcomes of both treatment strategies over 5 years considering the initiation of esketamine in the different treatment lines, from 3 to 5 (3L-5L). The model has been populated with data from literature and real-world evidence. The analysis from the societal perspective considered direct healthcare costs and patients' productivity losses. In addition to the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) has been calculated as (incremental benefit × WTP) - incremental cost and by applying a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 50,000€/QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses have been performed to assess the robustness of the model results.ResultsFrom the societal perspective, the ICUR ranged between 16,314€ and 22,133€ per QALY according to the different treatment lines, while it was over the threshold of 100,000€/QALY for the NHS perspective. The INMB was positive and ranged from 2259€ to 2744€ across treatment lines in the societal perspective; the INMB begins to occur earlier when moving towards subsequent lines of treatment (3.9 years for 3L, 3.6 years for 4L and 3.5 years for 5L). The analyses showed also that the advantage in terms of INMB is maintained for a wide range of societal preferences expressed by WTP thresholds, and in particular for values above 22,200€, 16,400€ and 17,100€ for 3L, 4L and 5L, respectively.ConclusionThe study showed that esketamine may be a cost-effective opportunity from the societal perspective for the management of patients with treatment-resistant depression. In the future, data collected from observational studies or registries, which can include the collection of productivity losses and also costs sustained by the patients, will be able to provide further evidence in order to improve the reliability of the model results.

Project description:BACKGROUND: In spite of advances in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, there are still a significant number of patients with depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder that are not aided by either intervention. Although still in the experimental stage, deep brain stimulation (DBS) offers many advantages over other physically-invasive procedures as a treatment for these psychiatric disorders. The purpose of this study is to systematically review reports on clinical trials of DBS for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Locations for stimulation, success rates and effects of the stimulation on brain metabolism are noted when available. The first observation of the effects of DBS on OCD and TRD came in the course of using DBS to treat movement disorders. Reports of changes in OCD and depression during such studies are reviewed with particular attention to electrode locations and associated adverse events; although these reports were adventitious observations rather than planned. Subsequent studies have been guided by more precise theories of structures involved in DBS and OICD. This study suggests stimulation sites and prognostic indicators for DBS. We also briefly review tractography, a relatively new procedure that holds great promise for the further development of DBS. METHODS: Articles were retrieved from MEDLINE via PubMed. Relevant references in retrieved articles were followed up. We included all articles reporting on studies of patients selected for having OCD or TRD. Adequacy of the selected studies was evaluated by the Jadad scale. Evaluation criteria included: number of patients, use of recognized psychiatric rating scales, and use of brain blood flow measurements. Success rates classified as "improved" or "recovered" were recorded. Studies of DBS for movement disorders were included if they reported coincidental relief of depression or reduction in OCD. Most of the studies involved small numbers of subjects so individual studies were reviewed. RESULTS: While the number of cases was small, these were extremely treatment-resistant patients. While not everyone responded, about half the patients did show dramatic improvement. Associated adverse events were generally trivial in younger psychiatric patients but often severe in older movement disorder patients. The procedures differed from study to study, and the numbers of patients was usually too small to do meaningful statistics or make valid inferences as to who will respond to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: DBS is considered a promising technique for OCD and TRD. Outstanding questions about patient selection and electrode placement can probably be resolved by (a) larger studies, (b) genetic studies and (c) imaging studies (MRI, fMRI, PET, and tractography).

Project description:BackgroundThe extraordinarily high prevalence of treatment-resistant depression (TRD), coupled with its high economic burden to both healthcare systems and society, underscore how critical it is that resources are managed optimally to address the significant challenge it presents.ObjectiveTo review the literature on economic evaluation in TRD systematically, with the aim of informing future studies by identifying key challenges specific to the area, and highlighting good practices.MethodsA systematic literature search across seven electronic databases was conducted to identify both within-trial and model-based economic evaluations in TRD. Quality of reporting and study design was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC). A narrative synthesis was conducted.ResultsWe identified 31 evaluations, including 11 conducted alongside a clinical trial and 20 model-based evaluations. There was considerable heterogeneity in the definition of treatment-resistant depression, although with a trend for more recent studies to use a definition of inadequate response to two or more antidepressive treatments. A broad range of interventions were considered, including non-pharmacological neuromodulation, pharmacological, psychological, and service-level interventions. Study quality as assessed by CHEC was generally high. Frequently poorly reported items related to discussion of ethical and distributional issues, and model validation. Most evaluations considered comparable core clinical outcomes - encompassing remission, response, and relapse. There was good agreement on the definitions and thresholds for these outcomes, and a relatively small pool of outcome measures were used. Resource criteria used to inform the estimation of direct costs, were reasonably uniform. Predominantly, however, there was a high level of heterogeneity in terms of evaluation design and sophistication, quality of evidence used (particularly health state utility data), time horizon, population considered, and cost perspective.ConclusionEconomic evidence for interventions in TRD is underdeveloped, particularly so for service-level interventions. Where evidence does exist, it is hampered by inconsistency in study design, methodological quality, and availability of high quality long-term outcomes evidence. This review identifies a number of key considerations and challenges for the design of future economic evaluations. Recommendations for research and suggestions for good practice are made.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=259848&VersionID=1542096, identifier CRD42021259848.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Long-term forms of depression represent a significant mental health problem for which there is a lack of effective evidence-based treatment. This study aims to produce findings about the effectiveness of psychoanalytic psychotherapy in patients with treatment-resistant/treatment-refractory depression and to deepen the understanding of this complex form of depression. METHODS/DESIGN INDEX GROUP: Patients with treatment resistant/treatment refractory depression. DEFINITION & INCLUSION CRITERIA: Current major depressive disorder, 2 years history of depression, a minimum of two failed treatment attempts, ?14 on the HRSD or ?21 on the BDI-II, plus complex personality and/or psycho-social difficulties. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Moderate or severe learning disability, psychotic illness, bipolar disorder, substance dependency or receipt of test intervention in the previous two years. DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomised controlled trial with qualitative and clinical components. TEST INTERVENTION: 18 months of weekly psychoanalytic psychotherapy, manualised and fidelity-assessed using the Psychotherapy Process Q-Sort. CONTROL CONDITION: Treatment as usual, managed by the referring practitioner. RECRUITMENT: GP referrals from primary care. RCT MAIN OUTCOME: HRSD (with ?14 as remission). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: depression severity (BDI-II), degree of co-morbid disorders Axis-I and Axis-II (SCID-I and SCID-II-PQ), quality of life and functioning (GAF, CORE, Q-les-Q), object relations (PROQ2a), Cost-effectiveness analysis (CSRI and GP medical records). FOLLOW-UP: 2 years. Plus: a). Qualitative study of participants' and therapists' problem formulation, experience of treatment and of participation in trial. (b) Narrative data from semi-structured pre/post psychodynamic interviews to produce prototypes of responders and non-responders. (c) Clinical case-studies of sub-types of TRD and of change. DISCUSSION: TRD needs complex, long-term intervention and extended research follow-up for the proper evaluation of treatment outcome. This pushes at the limits of the design of randomised therapeutic trials. We discuss some of the consequent problems and suggest how they may be mitigated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN40586372.

Project description:IntroductionDepression is a serious and widespread mental health disorder. A significant proportion of patients with depression fail to remit after two antidepressant treatment trials, a condition named treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are instruments aimed to improve diagnosis and treatment. This study objective is to systematically appraise the quality and elaborate a comparison of high-quality CPGs with high-quality recommendations aimed at TRD.Methods and analysisWe searched several specialized databases and organizations that develop CPGs. Independent researchers assessed the quality of the CPGs and their recommendations using AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments, respectively. We selected only high-quality CPGs that included definition and recommendations for TRD. We investigated their divergencies and convergencies as well as weak and strong points.ResultsAmong seven high-quality CPGs with high-quality recommendations only two (Germany's Nationale Versorgungs Leitlinie-NVL and US Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense-VA/DoD) included specific TRD definition and were selected. We found no convergent therapeutic strategy among these two CPGs. Electroconvulsive therapy is recommended by the NVL but not by the VA/DoD, while repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is recommended by the VA/DoD but not by the NVL. While the NVL recommends the use of lithium, and a non-routine use of thyroid or other hormones, psychostimulants, and dopaminergic agents the VA/DoD does not even include these drugs among augmentation strategies. Instead, the VA/DoD recommends ketamine or esketamine as augmentation strategies, while the NVL does not mention these drugs. Other differences between these CPGs include antidepressant combination, psychotherapy as a therapeutic augmentation, and evaluation of the need for hospitalization all of which are only recommended by the NVL.ConclusionsHigh-quality CPGs for the treatment of depression diverge regarding the definition and use of the term TRD. There is also no convergent approach to TRD from currently high-quality CPGs.