Dataset Information

A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although previous meta-analyses have examined effects of antidepressants, psychotherapy, and alternative therapies for depression, the efficacy of these treatments alone and in combination has not been systematically compared. We hypothesized that the differences between approved depression treatments and controls would be small.

Methods and findings

The authors first reviewed data from Food and Drug Administration Summary Basis of Approval reports of 62 pivotal antidepressant trials consisting of data from 13,802 depressed patients. This was followed by a systematic review of data from 115 published trials evaluating efficacy of psychotherapies and alternative therapies for depression. The published depression trials consisted of 10,310 depressed patients. We assessed the percentage symptom reduction experienced by the patients based on treatment assignment. Overall, antidepressants led to greater symptom reduction compared to placebo among both unpublished FDA data and published trials (F = 38.5, df = 239, p<0.001). In the published trials we noted that the magnitude of symptom reduction with active depression treatments compared to controls was significantly larger when raters evaluating treatment effects were un-blinded compared to the trials with blinded raters (F = 2.17, df = 313, p<0.05). In the blinded trials, the combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy provided a slight advantage over antidepressants (p = 0.027) and psychotherapy (p = 0.022) alone. The magnitude of symptom reduction was greater with psychotherapies compared to placebo (p = 0.019), treatment-as-usual (p = 0.012) and waiting-list (p<0.001). Differences were not seen with psychotherapy compared to antidepressants, alternative therapies or active intervention controls.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the combination of psychotherapy and antidepressants for depression may provide a slight advantage whereas antidepressants alone and psychotherapy alone are not significantly different from alternative therapies or active intervention controls. These data suggest that type of treatment offered is less important than getting depressed patients involved in an active therapeutic program. Future research should consider whether certain patient profiles might justify a specific treatment modality.

SUBMITTER: Khan A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3408478 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.

Khan Arif A Faucett James J Lichtenberg Pesach P Kirsch Irving I Brown Walter A WA

PloS one 20120730 7

<h4>Background</h4>Although previous meta-analyses have examined effects of antidepressants, psychotherapy, and alternative therapies for depression, the efficacy of these treatments alone and in combination has not been systematically compared. We hypothesized that the differences between approved depression treatments and controls would be small.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>The authors first reviewed data from Food and Drug Administration Summary Basis of Approval reports of 62 pivotal antidep ...[more]

PMID: 22860015

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the efficacy and safety of different endoscopic surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. DESIGN:Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to 31 March 2019. STUDY SELECTION:Randomised controlled trials comparing vapourisation, resection, and enucleation of the prostate using monopolar, bipolar, or various laser systems (holmium, thulium, potassium titanyl phosphate, or diode) as surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The primary outcomes were the maximal flow rate (Qmax) and international prostate symptoms score (IPSS) at 12 months after surgical treatment. Secondary outcomes were Qmax and IPSS values at 6, 24, and 36 months after surgical treatment; perioperative parameters; and surgical complications. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted the study data and performed quality assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The effect sizes were summarised using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios for binary outcomes. Frequentist approach to the network meta-analysis was used to estimate comparative effects and safety. Ranking probabilities of each treatment were also calculated. RESULTS:109 trials with a total of 13?676 participants were identified. Nine surgical treatments were evaluated. Enucleation achieved better Qmax and IPSS values than resection and vapourisation methods at six and 12 months after surgical treatment, and the difference maintained up to 24 and 36 months after surgical treatment. For Qmax at 12 months after surgical treatment, the best three methods compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) were bipolar enucleation (mean difference 2.42 mL/s (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 3.73)), diode laser enucleation (1.86 (-0.17 to 3.88)), and holmium laser enucleation (1.07 (0.07 to 2.08)). The worst performing method was diode laser vapourisation (-1.90 (-5.07 to 1.27)). The results of IPSS at 12 months after treatment were similar to Qmax at 12 months after treatment. The best three methods, versus monopolar TURP, were diode laser enucleation (mean difference -1.00 (-2.41 to 0.40)), bipolar enucleation (0.87 (-1.80 to 0.07)), and holmium laser enucleation (-0.84 (-1.51 to 0.58)). The worst performing method was diode laser vapourisation (1.30 (-1.16 to 3.76)). Eight new methods were better at controlling bleeding than monopolar TURP, resulting in a shorter catheterisation duration, reduced postoperative haemoglobin declination, fewer clot retention events, and lower blood transfusion rate. However, short term transient urinary incontinence might still be a concern for enucleation methods, compared with resection methods (odds ratio 1.92, 1.39 to 2.65). No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was detected in primary or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION:Eight new endoscopic surgical methods for benign prostatic hyperplasia appeared to be superior in safety compared with monopolar TURP. Among these new treatments, enucleation methods showed better Qmax and IPSS values than vapourisation and resection methods. STUDY REGISTRATION:CRD42018099583.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to create a rank order of the comparative efficacy and acceptability (risk of all-cause discontinuation) of antidepressant treatment in poststroke depression (PSD) by integrating direct and indirect evidence.DesignMultiple-treatments meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.ParticipantsPatients with depression following stroke.Interventions10 antidepressants and placebo in the acute treatment of PSD.Outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were the overall efficacy, defined as the mean change of the total depression score. The secondary outcome was the acceptability, defined as risk of all-cause discontinuation. These estimates as standardised mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs.ResultsWe identified 12 suitable trials, with data from 707 participants. All drugs were significantly more effective than placebo apart from sertraline, nefiracetam and fluoxetine. Most of the comparisons for acceptability revealed no significant differences except that paroxetine had significantly lower all-cause discontinuation than doxepin, citalopram and fluoxetine. Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for efficacy varied from -6.54 for the best drug (reboxetine) to 0.51 for the worst drug (nefiracetam). ORs compared with placebo for acceptability ranged from 0.09 for the best drug (paroxetine) to 3.42 for the worst drug (citalopram). For the efficacy rank, reboxetine, paroxetine, doxepin and duloxetine were among the most efficacious treatments, the cumulative probabilities of which were 100%, 85.7%, 83.2%, 62.4%, respectively. With respect to the acceptability rank, paroxetine, placebo, sertraline and nortriptyline were among the most acceptable treatments, the cumulative probabilities of which were 92.4%, 63.5%, 57.3%, 56.3%.ConclusionAfter weighing the efficacy and acceptability, we conclude that paroxetine might be the best choice when starting acute treatment for PSD, and fluoxetine might be the worst choice.Trial registration numberThis systematic review has been registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Review Protocols (PROSPERO) public database (CRD42017054741; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Cognitive impairment is prevalent and debilitating among persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). While many pharmacologic treatments have shown good efficacy in reducing clinical relapses, brain lesions, and improving certain physical symptoms, their efficacy for improving cognitive function is not well understood. OBJECTIVES:The current systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacologic treatments for improving cognitive function among persons with MS. METHODS:A literature search was conducted through the PubMed and PsycINFO databases. Two independent reviewers assessed each paper, and a third reviewer weighed in if the two reviewers could not reach a consensus. Classification of evidence was determined using the 2017 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) criteria for therapeutic trials. Standardized effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated to compare across studies. RESULTS:Eighty-seven journal articles published between 1990 and January 2020 were included in the current review. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of pharmacologic treatments to improve cognitive function in persons with MS. There were many contradictory findings observed in this review, which may be due to possible unidentified moderating treatment response variables and/or lack of standardization in assessment procedures. There was also an overreliance on statistical significance (most papers did not provide sizes of treatment effects), which may not be clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS:Higher-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the cognitive efficacy of pharmacologic treatments for MS-related cognitive dysfunction, with cognition as the primary endpoint. Researchers are urged to use standardized criteria (such as the AAN criteria) to guide their research designs. Clinicians should consider effect sizes of studies before deciding whether to prescribe certain medications to ameliorate cognitive symptoms.

Project description:BackgroundDepressive symptoms play an essential role in cognition decline, while the benefit and acceptability of treatments for depressive symptoms in cognitive impairment are still unknown.ObjectiveTo comprehensively evaluate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of treatments for depressive symptoms in cognitive impairment based on the quantitative Bayesian network meta-analysis method (NMA).MethodWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception until August 2022 to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating treatments for depressive symptoms in cognitive impairment. Efficacy was evaluated by the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) for depression; the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and the Cohen-Mansfeld Agitation Inventory (CMAI) for behavior; and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for cognition. Safety was evaluated by total adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, diarrhea, headache, and nausea.ResultsIn this study, 13,043 participants from 107 RCTs were included, involving 28 treatments and the discontinuation of antidepressants. On CSDD, aerobic exercise (MD -4.51, 95%CrI -8.60 to -0.37), aripiprazole (MD -1.85, 95%CrI -3.66 to -0.02), behavioral training (MD -1.14, 95%CrI -2.04 to -0.34), electrical current stimulation (MD -3.30, 95%CrI -5.94 to -0.73), massage (MD -12.67, 95%CrI -14.71 to -10.59), music therapy (MD -2.63, 95%CrI -4.72 to -0.58), and reminiscence therapy (MD -2.34, 95%CrI -3.51 to -1.25) significantly outperformed the placebo. On MMSE, cognitive stimulation therapy (MD 1.42, 95%CrI 0.49 to 2.39), electrical current stimulation (MD 4.08, 95%CrI 1.07 to 7.11), and reminiscence therapy (MD 1.31, 95%CrI 0.04 to 2.91) significantly outperformed the placebo. Additionally, no treatments showed a significantly higher risk than the placebo.ConclusionOur NMAs indicated that non-pharmacological interventions were more efficacious and safe than pharmacological treatments for reducing depressive symptoms as well as improving cognitive impairment. Electrical current stimulation, aerobic exercise, and reminiscence therapy could be first recommended considering their beneficial performance on both depression and cognition. Hence, non-pharmacological treatments deserve more attention and extensive application and should at least be considered as an alternative or assistance in clinical settings.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021239621, identifier: CRD42021239621.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets