Dataset Information

A meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled treatment trials for depression and anxiety in Parkinson's disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Psychopharmacotherapy currently constitutes the first-line treatment for depression and anxiety in Parkinson's disease (PD) however the efficacy of antidepressant treatments in PD is unclear. Several alternative treatments have been suggested as potentially more viable alternatives including dopamine agonists, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).

Method

A meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials for depression and/or anxiety in PD was conducted to systematically examine the efficacy of current treatments for depression and anxiety in PD.

Results

Nine trials were included. There was only sufficient data to calculate a pooled effect for antidepressant therapies. The pooled effect of antidepressants for depression in PD was moderate but non-significant (d = .71, 95% CI = -1.33 to 3.08). The secondary effect of antidepressants on anxiety in PD was large but also non-significant (d = 1.13, 95% CI = -.67 to 2.94). Two single-trials of non-pharmacological treatments for depression in PD resulted in significant large effects; Omega-3 supplementation (d = .92, 95% CI = .15 to 1.69) and CBT (d = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.07), and warrant further exploration.

Conclusions

There remains a lack of controlled trials for both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for depression and anxiety in PD which limits the conclusions which can be drawn. While the pooled effects of antidepressant therapies in PD were non-significant, the moderate to large magnitude of each pooled effect is promising. Non-pharmacological approaches show potential for depression in PD however more research is required.

SUBMITTER: Troeung L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3827386 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled treatment trials for depression and anxiety in Parkinson's disease.

Troeung Lakkhina L Egan Sarah J SJ Gasson Natalie N

PloS one 20131113 11

<h4>Background</h4>Psychopharmacotherapy currently constitutes the first-line treatment for depression and anxiety in Parkinson's disease (PD) however the efficacy of antidepressant treatments in PD is unclear. Several alternative treatments have been suggested as potentially more viable alternatives including dopamine agonists, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).<h4>Method</h4>A meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials for depressi ...[more]

PMID: 24236141

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a debitlitating, chronic, progressive neurodegenerative disorder without modifying therapy. Here, we aimed to evaluate the available evidence of herbal medicine (HM) formulas for patients with PD according to randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. Methods: HM formulas for PD were searched in eight main databases from their inception to February 2018. The methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Fourteen trials with Seventeen comparisons comprising 1,311 patients were identified. Compared with placebo groups, HM paratherapy (n = 16 comparisons) showed significant better effects in the assessments of total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (WMD: -5.43, 95% CI:-8.01 to -2.86; P < 0.0001), UPDRS I (WMD: -0.30, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.06; P = 0.02), UPDRS II (WMD: -2.21, 95% CI: -3.19 to -1.22; P < 0.0001), UPDRS III (WMD: -3.26, 95% CI:-4.36 to -2.16; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (WMD: -7.65, 95% CI: -11.46 to -3.83; p < 0.0001), Non-motor Symptoms Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (WMD: -9.19, 95% CI: -13.11 to -5.28; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale (WMD: 10.69, 95% CI: 8.86 to 12.53; P < 0.00001), and Hamilton depression rating scale (WMD: -5.87, 95% CI: -7.06 to -4.68; P < 0.00001). The efficiency of HM monotherapy (n = 1 comparison) was not superior to the placebo according to UPDRS II, UPDRS III and total UPDRS score in PD patients who never received levodopa treatment, all P > 0.05. HM formulas paratherapy were generally safe and well tolerated for PD patients (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80; P = 0.009). Conclusion: The findings of present study supported the complementary use of HM paratherapy for PD patients, whereas the question on the efficacy of HM monotherapy in alleviating PD symptoms is still open.

Project description:BackgroundA rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.MethodsLiterature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis all followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. 'Effect size' was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy.ResultsForty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs. Forty-nine trials were classed as 'high risk of bias' and 23 as 'uncertain risk of bias'; the remaining three, clinically heterogeneous, trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was -0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.21), which was attenuated to -0.16 (95% CI -0.31, -0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence.ConclusionsThe quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.

Project description:BackgroundExenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has neuroprotective effects in preclinical models of Parkinson's disease. We investigated whether these effects would be apparent in a clinical trial.MethodsIn this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with moderate Parkinson's disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous injections of exenatide 2 mg or placebo once weekly for 48 weeks in addition to their regular medication, followed by a 12-week washout period. Eligible patients were aged 25-75 years, had idiopathic Parkinson's disease as measured by Queen Square Brain Bank criteria, were on dopaminergic treatment with wearing-off effects, and were at Hoehn and Yahr stage 2·5 or less when on treatment. Randomisation was by web-based randomisation with a two strata block design according to disease severity. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the adjusted difference in the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor subscale (part 3) in the practically defined off-medication state at 60 weeks. All efficacy analyses were based on a modified intention-to-treat principle, which included all patients who completed any post-randomisation follow-up assessments. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01971242) and is completed.FindingsBetween June 18, 2014, and March 13, 2015, 62 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 32 to exenatide and 30 to placebo. Our primary analysis included 31 patients in the exenatide group and 29 patients in the placebo group. At 60 weeks, off-medication scores on part 3 of the MDS-UPDRS had improved by 1·0 points (95% CI -2·6 to 0·7) in the exenatide group and worsened by 2·1 points (-0·6 to 4·8) in the placebo group, an adjusted mean difference of -3·5 points (-6·7 to -0·3; p=0·0318). Injection site reactions and gastrointestinal symptoms were common adverse events in both groups. Six serious adverse events occurred in the exenatide group and two in the placebo group, although none in either group were judged to be related to the study interventions.InterpretationExenatide had positive effects on practically defined off-medication motor scores in Parkinson's disease, which were sustained beyond the period of exposure. Whether exenatide affects the underlying disease pathophysiology or simply induces long-lasting symptomatic effects is uncertain. Exenatide represents a major new avenue for investigation in Parkinson's disease, and effects on everyday symptoms should be examined in longer-term trials.FundingMichael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.

Project description:ObjectivesTo provide a broad evaluation of the efficacy and safety of oral Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) as an adjunctive treatment for diabetic kidney disease (DKD), including mortality, progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), albuminuria, proteinuria and kidney function.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral CHM with placebo as an additional intervention to conventional treatments were retrieved from five English (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and four Chinese databases (China BioMedical Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chonqing VIP and Wanfang) from inception to May 2018. RCTs recruiting adult DKD patients induced by primary diabetes were considered eligible, regardless of the form and ingredients of oral CHM. Mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) was used to analyse continuous variables and RR for dichotomous data.ResultsFrom 7255 reports retrieved, 20 eligible studies involving 2719 DKD patients were included. CHM was associated with greater reduction of albuminuria than placebo, regardless of whether renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors were concurrently administered (SMD -0.56, 95% CI [-1.04 to -0.08], I2=64%, p=0.002) or not (SMD -0.92, 95% CI [-1.35 to -0.51], I2=87%, p<0.0001). When CHM was used as an adjunct to RAS inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate was higher in the CHM than placebo group (MD 6.28 mL/min; 95% CI [2.42 to 10.14], I2=0%, p=0.001). The effects of CHM on progression to ESKD and mortality were uncertain due to low event rates. The reported adverse events in CHM group included digestive disorders, elevated liver enzyme level, infection, anaemia, hypertension and subarachnoid haemorrhage, but the report rates were low and similar to control groups. The favourable results of CHM should be balanced with the limitations of the included studies such as high heterogeneity, short follow-up periods, small numbers of clinical events and older patients with less advanced disease.ConclusionsBased on moderate to low quality evidence, CHM may have beneficial effects on renal function and albuminuria beyond that afforded by conventional treatment in adults with DKD. Further well-conducted, adequately powered trials with representative DKD populations are warranted to confirm the long-term effect of CHM, particularly on clinically relevant outcomes.Prospero registration numberCRD42015029293.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the effect of antihypertensive treatment in the 130-140 mm Hg systolic blood pressure range.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Information sourcesPubMed, CDSR and DARE were searched for the systematic reviews, which were manually browsed for clinical trials. PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for trials directly in February 2018.Eligibility criteriaRandomised double-blind trials with ≥1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing any antihypertensive agent against placebo.Data extraction and risk of biasTwo reviewers extracted study-level data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane Collaborations risk of bias assessment tool, independently.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events and discontinuation due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, hypotension-related adverse events and renal impairment.ResultsEighteen trials, including 92 567 participants (34% women, mean age 63 years), fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Primary preventive antihypertensive treatment was associated with a neutral effect on all-cause mortality (relative risk 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06) and major cardiovascular events (1.01, 0.96 to 1.06), but an increased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (1.23, 1.03 to 1.47). None of the secondary efficacy outcomes were significantly reduced, but the risk of hypotension-related adverse events increased with treatment (1.71, 1.32 to 2.22). In coronary artery disease secondary prevention, antihypertensive treatment was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality (0.91, 0.83 to 0.99) and major cardiovascular events (0.85, 0.77 to 0.94), but doubled the risk of adverse events leading to discontinuation (2.05, 1.62 to 2.61).ConclusionPrimary preventive blood pressure lowering in the 130-140 mm Hg systolic blood pressure range adds no cardiovascular benefit, but increases the risk of adverse events. In the secondary prevention, benefits should be weighed against harms.Prospero registration numberCRD42018088642.

Project description:Summary Background Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive form of brain stimulation that positively regulates the motor and non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). Although, most reviews and meta-analysis have shown that rTMS intervention is effective in treating motor symptoms and depression, very few have used randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to analyse the efficacy of this intervention in PD. We aimed to review RCTs of rTMS in patients with PD to assess the efficacy of rTMS on motor and non-motor function in patients with PD. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases for RCTs on rTMS in PD published between January 1, 1988 to January 1, 2022. Eligible studies included sham-controlled RCTs that used rTMS stimulation for motor or non-motor symptoms in PD. RCTs not focusing on the efficacy of rTMS in PD were excluded. Summary data were extracting from those RCTs by two investigators independently. We then calculated standardised mean difference with random-effect models. The main outcome included motor and non-motor examination of scales that were used in PD motor or non-motor assessment. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022329633. Findings Fourteen studies with 469 patients met the criteria for our meta-analysis. Twelve eligible studies with 381 patients were pooled to analyse the efficacy of rTMS on motor function improvement. The effect size on motor scale scores was 0.51 (P < 0.0001) and were not distinctly heterogeneous (I2 = 29%). Five eligible studies with 202 patients were collected to evaluate antidepressant-like effects. The effect size on depression scale scores was 0.42 (P = 0.004), and were not distinctly heterogeneous (I2 = 25%), indicating a significant anti-depressive effect (P = 0.004). The results suggest that high-frequency of rTMS on primary motor cortex (M1) is effective in improving motor symptoms; while the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) may be a potentially effective area in alleviating depressive symptom. Interpretation The findings suggest that rTMS could be used as a possible adjuvant therapy for PD mainly to improve motor symptoms, but could have potential efficacy on depressive symptoms of PD. However, further investigation is needed. Funding The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NO: 81873777, 82071414), Initiated Foundation of Zhujiang Hospital (NO: 02020318005), Scientific Research Foundation of Guangzhou (NO: 202206010005), and Science and Technology Program of Guangdong of China (NO: 2020A0505100037).

Project description:BackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an inflammatory autoimmune condition associated with an increased risk of developing depression and anxiety. Depression and anxiety are associated with worse outcomes in RA, but the magnitude of the effect of each condition on RA outcomes is unclear. It is also unknown how pharmacological treatment of depression affects RA outcomes.ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study was to investigate the association of comorbid depression and anxiety with remission in patients with RA. Secondary aims were to determine the association between comorbid depression and anxiety on patient-reported outcomes and the relationship between concomitant use of antidepressants and remission in patients with depression.DesignData from patients with moderate to severe RA were pooled from five randomised controlled trials investigating tocilizumab and conventional synthetic disease-modifying agents.MethodsRemission was defined as a clinical disease activity index (CDAI) of ⩽2.8 and simple disease activity index (SDAI) of ⩽3.3. The association between the time to reach remission and depression and anxiety was analysed using Cox proportional hazard analysis.ResultsIndividual patient data were available from 5502 subjects, of whom 511 had depression, 236 had anxiety and 387 were using antidepressants. Depression was significantly associated with reduced remission [adjusted HR (95% CI): 0.62 (0.48-0.80), p < 0.001 and adjusted HR (95% CI): 0.59 (0.44-0.79), p < 0.001] using CDAI and SDAI, respectively. Depression was associated with a lower likelihood of achieving more subjective outcomes (⩽1 physician global assessment, ⩽1 patient global assessment) and ⩽1 28-swollen joint count, but not ⩽1 28-tender joint count or C-reactive protein measurement. Treatment with antidepressants did not improve outcomes for patients with depression. Anxiety was not significantly associated with RA remission.ConclusionComorbid depression, but not anxiety, was associated with less frequent remission. Concomitant antidepressant use was not associated with improvements in RA outcomes in patients with depression.

Dataset Information

A meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled treatment trials for depression and anxiety in Parkinson's disease.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled treatment trials for depression and anxiety in Parkinson's disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets