Dataset Information

The effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We used The Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder. Participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder to be eligible. Altogether, we included 12 trials randomizing a total of 669 participants. All 12 trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (four trials; mean difference -3.05 (95% confidence interval (Cl), -5.23 to -0.87; P<0.006)) compared with 'no intervention'. Trial sequential analysis could not confirm this result. Meta-analysis on the Beck Depression Inventory showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (eight trials; mean difference on -4.86 (95% CI -6.44 to -3.28; P?=?0.00001)). Trial sequential analysis on these data confirmed the result. Only a few trials reported on 'no remission', suicide inclination, suicide attempts, suicides, and adverse events without significant differences between the compared intervention groups. DISCUSSION: Cognitive therapy might be an effective treatment for depression measured on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Beck Depression Inventory, but these outcomes may be overestimated due to risks of systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). Furthermore, the effects of cognitive therapy on no remission, suicidality, adverse events, and quality of life are unclear. There is a need for randomized trials with low risk of bias, low risk of random errors, and longer follow-up assessing both benefits and harms with clinically relevant outcome measures.

SUBMITTER: Jakobsen JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3235113 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder.

Jakobsen Janus Christian JC Hansen Jane Lindschou JL Storebø Ole Jakob OJ Simonsen Erik E Gluud Christian C

PloS one 20111209 12

<h4>Background</h4>Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews.<h4>Methods/principal findings</h4>We used The Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials comparing the effects of cognitive therapy ...[more]

PMID: 22174786

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMajor depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews.Methods/principal findingsCochrane systematic review methodology, with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials, are comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included eight trials randomizing a total of 719 participants. All eight trials had high risk of bias. Four trials reported data on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and four trials reported data on the Beck Depression Inventory. Meta-analysis on the data from the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy compared with 'treatment as usual' significantly reduced depressive symptoms (mean difference -2.15 (95% confidence interval -3.70 to -0.60; P<0.007, no heterogeneity)). However, meta-analysis with both fixed-effect and random-effects model on the data from the Beck Depression Inventory (mean difference with both models -1.57 (95% CL -4.30 to 1.16; P = 0.26, I(2) = 0) could not confirm the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression results. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis on both the data from Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Becks Depression Inventory showed that insufficient data have been obtained.DiscussionCognitive therapy might not be an effective treatment for major depressive disorder compared with 'treatment as usual'. The possible treatment effect measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression is relatively small. More randomized trials with low risk of bias, increased sample sizes, and broader more clinically relevant outcomes are needed.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the benefits and harms of third-wave cognitive therapy versus mentalisation-based therapy in a small sample of depressed participants.SettingThe trial was conducted at an outpatient psychiatric clinic for non-psychotic patients in Roskilde, Denmark.Participants44 consecutive adult participants diagnosed with major depressive disorder.Interventions18 weeks of third-wave cognitive therapy (n=22) versus 18 weeks of mentalisation-based treatment (n=22).OutcomesThe primary outcome was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS) at end of treatment (18 weeks). Secondary outcomes were: remission (HDRS <8), Beck's Depression Inventory, Symptom Checklist 90 Revised and The WHO-Five Well-being Index 1999.ResultsThe trial inclusion lasted for about 2 years as planned but only 44 out of the planned 84 participants were randomised. Two mentalisation-based participants were lost to follow-up. The unadjusted analysis showed that third-wave participants compared with mentalisation-based participants did not differ significantly regarding the 18 weeks HDRS score (12.9 vs 17.0; mean difference -4.14; 95% CI -8.30 to 0.03; p=0.051). In the analysis adjusted for baseline HDRS score, the difference was favouring third-wave cognitive therapy (p=0.039). At 18 weeks, five of the third-wave participants (22.7%) were in remission versus none of the mentalisation-based participants (p=0.049). We recorded no suicide attempts or suicides during the intervention period in any of the 44 participants. No significant differences were found between the two intervention groups on the remaining secondary outcomes.ConclusionsThird-wave cognitive therapy may be more effective than mentalisation-based therapy for depressive symptoms measured on the HDRS. However, more randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the effects of third-wave cognitive therapy and mentalisation-based treatment for depression.Trial registration numberRegistered with Clinical Trials government identifier: NCT01070134.

Project description:Background: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a moderately heritable disorder with a high lifetime prevalence. At present, laboratory blood tests to support MDD diagnosis are not available. Methods: We used a classifier approach on blood gene expression profiles of a unique set of non-medicated subjects (MDD patients and controls) to select genes of which expression is predictive for disease status. To reveal blood gene expression changes related to MDD disease, we applied a powerful ex vivo stimulus to the blood, i.e. incubation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS; 10 ng/ml blood). Results: Based on LPS-stimulated blood gene expression using whole-genome microarrays in 42 subjects (primary cohort; 21 MDD patients (mean age 42.3 years), 21 healthy controls (mean age 41.9 years)), we identified a set of genes (CAPRIN1, CLEC4A, KRT23, MLC1, PLSCR1, PROK2, ZBTB16) that serves as a molecular signature of MDD. These findings were validated for the primary cohort using an independent quantitative PCR method (P = 0.007). The difference between depressive patients and controls was confirmed (P = 0.019) in a replication cohort of 13 patients with MDD (mean age 42.8 years) and 14 controls (mean age 45.6 years). The MDD-signature score comprised of expression levels of 7 genes could discriminate depressive patients from controls with sensitivity of 76.9% and specificity of 71.8%. Conclusions: We show for the first time that molecular analysis of stimulated blood cells can be used as an endophenotype for MDD diagnosis, which is a milestone in establishing biomarkers for neuropsychiatric disorders with moderate heritability in general. Our results may provide a new entry point for following and predicting treatment outcome, as well as prediction of severity and recurrence of MDD. In total, 33 MDD patients and 34 healthy controls were analyzed using basal gene expression in whole blood, and gene expression from whole blood that was stimulated with LPS for 5-6 h, using microarrays. Patients were arbitrarily selected from all patients to serve as primary cohort (nMDD = 21 (MDD01-MDD21); nControls = 21 (Con01-Con21)), or replication cohort (nMDD = 12 (MDD22-MDD35); nControls = 13 (Con22-Con37)) using microarrays. This submission does not include Samples CON21_LPS or CON30_LPS.

Dataset Information

The effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder.

Publications

The effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets