Dataset Information

Psychological and pharmacological interventions for social anxiety disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Social anxiety disorder-a chronic and naturally unremitting disease that causes substantial impairment-can be treated with pharmacological, psychological, and self-help interventions. We aimed to compare these interventions and to identify which are most effective for the acute treatment of social anxiety disorder in adults.

Methods

We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of interventions for adults with social anxiety disorder, identified from published and unpublished sources between 1988 and Sept 13, 2013. We analysed interventions by class and individually. Outcomes were validated measures of social anxiety, reported as standardised mean differences (SMDs) compared with a waitlist reference. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012003146.

Findings

We included 101 trials (13 164 participants) of 41 interventions or control conditions (17 classes) in the analyses. Classes of pharmacological interventions that had greater effects on outcomes compared with waitlist were monoamine oxidase inhibitors (SMD -1·01, 95% credible interval [CrI] -1·56 to -0·45), benzodiazepines (-0·96, -1·56 to -0·36), selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs and SNRIs; -0·91, -1·23 to -0·60), and anticonvulsants (-0·81, -1·36 to -0·28). Compared with waitlist, efficacious classes of psychological interventions were individual cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT; SMD -1·19, 95% CrI -1·56 to -0·81), group CBT (-0·92, -1·33 to -0·51), exposure and social skills (-0·86, -1·42 to -0·29), self-help with support (-0·86, -1·36 to -0·36), self-help without support (-0·75, -1·25 to -0·26), and psychodynamic psychotherapy (-0·62, -0·93 to -0·31). Individual CBT compared with psychological placebo (SMD -0·56, 95% CrI -1·00 to -0·11), and SSRIs and SNRIs compared with pill placebo (-0·44, -0·67 to -0·22) were the only classes of interventions that had greater effects on outcomes than appropriate placebo. Individual CBT also had a greater effect than psychodynamic psychotherapy (SMD -0·56, 95% CrI -1·03 to -0·11) and interpersonal psychotherapy, mindfulness, and supportive therapy (-0·82, -1·41 to -0·24).

Interpretation

Individual CBT (which other studies have shown to have a lower risk of side-effects than pharmacotherapy) is associated with large effect sizes. Thus, it should be regarded as the best intervention for the initial treatment of social anxiety disorder. For individuals who decline psychological intervention, SSRIs show the most consistent evidence of benefit.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

SUBMITTER: Mayo-Wilson E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4287862 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSocial anxiety disorder is one of the most persistent and common anxiety disorders. Individually delivered psychological therapies are the most effective treatment options for adults with social anxiety disorder, but they are associated with high intervention costs. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the relative cost effectiveness of a variety of psychological and pharmacological interventions for adults with social anxiety disorder.MethodsA decision-analytic model was constructed to compare costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of 28 interventions for social anxiety disorder from the perspective of the British National Health Service and personal social services. Efficacy data were derived from a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Other model input parameters were based on published literature and national sources, supplemented by expert opinion.ResultsIndividual cognitive therapy was the most cost-effective intervention for adults with social anxiety disorder, followed by generic individual cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), phenelzine and book-based self-help without support. Other drugs, group-based psychological interventions and other individually delivered psychological interventions were less cost-effective. Results were influenced by limited evidence suggesting superiority of psychological interventions over drugs in retaining long-term effects. The analysis did not take into account side effects of drugs.ConclusionVarious forms of individually delivered CBT appear to be the most cost-effective options for the treatment of adults with social anxiety disorder. Consideration of side effects of drugs would only strengthen this conclusion, as it would improve even further the cost effectiveness of individually delivered CBT relative to phenelzine, which was the next most cost-effective option, due to the serious side effects associated with phenelzine. Further research needs to determine more accurately the long-term comparative benefits and harms of psychological and pharmacological interventions for social anxiety disorder and establish their relative cost effectiveness with greater certainty.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral interventions are available for management of obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults, but few studies have compared their relative efficacy in a single analysis. We aimed to simultaneously compare all available treatments using both direct and indirect data.MethodsIn this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the two controlled trials registers maintained by the Cochrane Collaboration Common Mental Disorders group for trials published up to Feb 16, 2016. We selected randomised controlled trials in which an active psychotherapeutic or pharmacological intervention had been used in adults with obsessive-compulsive disorder. We allowed all comorbidities except for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. We excluded studies that focused exclusively on treatment-resistant patient populations defined within the same study. We extracted data from published reports. The primary outcome was symptom severity as measured by the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. We report mean differences with 95% credible intervals compared with placebo. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002441.FindingsWe identified 1480 articles in our search and included 53 articles (54 trials; 6652 participants) in the network meta-analysis. Behavioural therapy (mean difference -14·48 [95% credible interval -18·61 to -10·23]; 11 trials and 287 patients), cognitive therapy (-13·36 [-18·40 to -8·21]; six trials and 172 patients), behavioural therapy and clomipramine (-12·97 [-19·18 to -6·74]; one trial and 31 patients), cognitive behavioural therapy and fluvoxamine (-7·50 [-13·89 to -1·17]; one trial and six patients), cognitive behavioural therapy (-5·37 [-9·10 to -1·63]; nine trials and 231 patients), clomipramine (-4·72 [-6·85 to -2·60]; 13 trials and 831 patients), and all SSRIs (class effect -3·49 [95% credible interval -5·12 to -1·81]; 37 trials and 3158 patients) had greater effects than did drug placebo. Clomipramine was not better than were SSRIs (-1·23 [-3·41 to 0·94]). Psychotherapeutic interventions had a greater effect than did medications, but a serious limitation was that most psychotherapeutic trials included patients who were taking stable doses of antidepressants (12 [80%] of the 15 psychotherapy trials explicitly allowed antidepressants).InterpretationA range of interventions is effective in the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder, but considerable uncertainty and limitations exist regarding their relative efficacy. Taking all the evidence into account, the combination of psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological interventions is likely to be more effective than are psychotherapeutic interventions alone, at least in severe obsessive-compulsive disorder.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Project description:IntroductionIt is unclear how pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions compare with each other in terms of efficacy and tolerability for core symptoms and additional problems in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We aim to conduct the first network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions (or their combinations) in adults with ADHD.Methods and analysisWe will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for NMAs. We will search a broad set of electronic databases/registries and contact drug companies and experts in the field to retrieve published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (parallel or cross-over) of medications (either licensed or unlicensed) and any non-pharmacological intervention in adults (≥18 years) with ADHD. Primary outcomes will be: (1) change in severity of ADHD core symptoms, and (2) acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). Secondary outcomes will include tolerability (drop-out due to side effects) and change in the severity of emotional dysregulation, executive dysfunctions and quality of life. The risk of bias in each individual RCT included in the NMA will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2. We will evaluate the transitivity assumption comparing the distribution of possible effect modifiers across treatment comparisons. We will perform Bayesian NMA for each outcome with random-effects model in OpenBUGS. Pooled estimates of NMA will be obtained using the Markov Chains Monte Carlo method. We will judge the credibility in the evidence derived from the NMA using the CINeMA tool (which includes assessment of publication bias). We will conduct a series of sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the findings.Ethics and disseminationAs this is the protocol for an aggregate-data level NMA, ethical approval will not be required. Results will be disseminated at national/international conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.Prospero registration numberCRD42021265576.

Project description:Objectives: To assess the published randomized controlled trials (RCT) of non-pharmacological interventions systematically and to synthesize the evidence of these interventions for the management of anxiety and depression in adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Background: Anxiety and depression are common symptoms in adults with IBD and can have many negative outcomes on their quality of life (QOL). Non-pharmacological interventions for anxiety and depression are important to improve the adaptive strategies of adults with IBD. Previously published reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to mitigate anxiety and depression in those with IBD have resulted in inconclusive evidence. This review is aimed to fill that gap. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Method: Using a PRISMA diagram, English-language RCT published were searched using combined keywords of inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, randomized controlled trial, anxiety, and depression. The Cochrane risk of bias tool is utilized to assess the methodological quality of each study. A meta-analysis of RCTs was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software. Results: The final review included 10 studies. The overall risk of bias of the selected studies varied from low risk in three studies, some concerns in four of the studies, and high risk of bias in three of the studies. Interventions included cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness-based therapy, breath-body- mind -workshop, guided imagery with relaxation, solution-focused therapy, yoga, and multicomponent interventions. The pooled evidence from all non-pharmacological interventions showed that these interventions significantly helped to reduce anxiety, depression, and disease specific quality of life (QOL) in adults with IBD compared to control groups. However, the effect sizes are small. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) was -0.28 (95% CI [-0.47, -0.09], p = 0.004) for anxiety, -0.22 (95% CI [-0.41, -0.03], p = 0.025) for depression and 0.20 (95% CI [0.004, 0.39], p = 0.046) for disease specific QOL. Conclusion: The addressed non-pharmacological interventions were multifaceted and demonstrated positive effects on anxiety and depression, and QOL in those with IBD. Healthcare providers can facilitate a discussion with adults with IBD about the availability of these interventions to mitigate their anxiety and depression and to improve their QOL.