Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of Pharmacological, Psychotherapeutic, and Combination Treatments in Adults With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Network Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent mental disorder, with a high risk of chronicity, comorbidity, and functional impairment; PTSD is complicated to treat, and the debate on the best treatment approach is ongoing.

Objective

To examine comparative outcomes and acceptability of psychotherapeutic and pharmacological treatments and their combinations in adults with PTSD.

Data sources

Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and PSYNDEX were searched for studies published from January 1, 1980, to February 28, 2018. Reference lists of included studies and of previously published guidelines and systematic reviews were also searched.

Study selection

Of 11 417 records identified, 12 published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comprising 922 participants, contributing 23 direct comparisons between psychotherapeutic and pharmacological treatments or their combinations were included.

Data extraction and synthesis

Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios were aggregated using random-effects network and pairwise meta-analyses. Risk of bias and indirectness was rated for each study, and network confidence was rated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the comparative benefit between 2 treatment approaches to PTSD symptom improvement, and secondary outcome was the comparative acceptability of the treatment approaches, as indicated by patient dropout rates before treatment termination.

Results

No treatment approach was found to be superior at the end of treatment (for all, 95% CI included 0). At the last follow-up, psychotherapeutic treatments showed greater benefit than pharmacological treatments in both network (SMD, -0.83; 95% CI, -1.59 to -0.07) and pairwise (SMD, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.18 to -0.09, 3 RCTs) meta-analyses. No difference was found between combined treatments and psychotherapeutic treatments at long-term follow-up, and combined treatments were associated with better outcomes than pharmacological treatments in the network meta-analysis (SMD, -0.96; 95% CI, -1.87 to -0.04), but not in the pairwise meta-analysis, which included 2 RCTs (SMD, -1.02; 95% CI, -2.77 to 0.72). No evidence was found for differential acceptability of the 3 treatment approaches.

Conclusions and relevance

These results suggest superiority of psychotherapeutic treatments over pharmacological treatments; network, but not pairwise, meta-analyses suggest superiority of combined treatments over pharmacological treatments in improving PTSD symptom severity in the long term. The scarcity of reported long-term findings hampers definite conclusions and demonstrates the need for robust evidence from large-scaled comparative trials providing long-term follow-up data.

SUBMITTER: Merz J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6563588 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction Although several non-pharmacological interventions have been tested in the management of Fibromyalgia (FM), there is little consensus regarding the best options for the treatment of this health condition. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions for FM, in order to assist clinical decision making through a ranking of interventions in relation to the most important clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions endorsed in guidelines and systematic reviews. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases without language or date restrictions (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro). Our primary outcomes will be pain intensity, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and acceptability of treatment will be our secondary outcome. Risk of bias of the included trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). For each pairwise comparison between the different interventions, we will present mean differences (MDs) for pain intensity and QoL outcomes and Relative Risks (RRs) for acceptability, both with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Initially, standard pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model for all comparisons with at least two trials and then we will perform a frequentist NMA using the methodology of multivariate meta-analysis assuming a common heterogeneity parameter, using the mvmeta command and network suite in STATA. In the NMA, two different types of control group, such as placebo/sham and no intervention/waiting list will be combined as one node called “Control”. The competing interventions will be ranked using the P-score, which is the frequentist analogue of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes of interest at immediate- (intervention duration of up to 2 weeks), short- (over 2 weeks up to 12 weeks) and long-terms (over 12 weeks). The confidence in the results from NMA will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta‐analysis (CINeMA) framework. Ethics and dissemination This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Registration OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7MS25) and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020216374).

Project description:IntroductionDepressive disorder is common in children and adolescents, with important consequences and serious impairments in terms of personal and social functioning. While both pharmacological and psychological interventions have been shown to be effective, there is still uncertainty about the balance between these and what treatment strategy should be preferred in clinical practice. Therefore, we aim to compare and rank in a network meta-analysis (NMA) the commonly used psychological, pharmacological and combined interventions for depressive disorder in children and adolescents.Methods and analysisWe will update the literature search of two previous NMAs for the identification of trials of antidepressant and psychotherapy alone for depressive disorder in children and adolescents. For identification of trials of combination interventions, seven databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LiLACS) will be searched from date of inception. We will also search ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and check relevant reports on the US Food and Drug Administration website for unpublished data. Building on our previous findings in the field, we will include any commonly prescribed oral antidepressants and any manualised or structured psychotherapies, as well as their combinations. Randomised controlled trials assessing any active intervention against active comparator or pill placebo/psychological controls in acute treatment for depressive disorder in children and adolescents will be included. The primary outcomes will be efficacy (mean change in depressive symptoms), and acceptability of treatment (dropout rate due to any cause). The secondary outcomes will be remission rate, tolerability of treatment (dropouts for adverse events), as well as suicide-related outcomes (suicidal behaviour or ideation). We will perform Bayesian NMAs for all relative outcome measures. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.DisseminationThis NMA will provide the most up to date and clinically useful information about the comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychological intervention and their combination in the acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder. This is the newest NMA and therefore these results are very important in terms of evidence-based medicine. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication.Protocol registrationPROSPERO CRD42015020841.

Project description:Background: With the growing importance of research about the association between neuroinflammation and major depressive disorder (MDD), anti-inflammatory agents have been used as a new antidepressant therapy in clinical practice. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) with up-to-date evidence to compare different anti-inflammatory agents for improving the treatment of MDD patients. Methods: To identify eligible randomized clinical trials, four databases (i.e, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed and Embase) were searched from inception date to May 31, 2020. Anti-inflammatory agents were defined as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, cytokine inhibitors, statins, pioglitazone, minocycline, N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and omega-3 fatty acid (Omega-3 FA). The main outcomes of this NMA were efficacy, acceptability and remission rate. Risk ratio (RR) was adopted for dichotomous outcomes, and the confidence interval (CI) was set at 95%. STATA 14.0 and R 3.6.3 were used to conduct the NMA. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182531). Results: A total of 39 studies, involving 2871 participants, were included in quantitative data synthesis. For efficacy, NSAIDs (RR=0.50, 95%CI: 0.26-0.73) and pioglitazone (RR=0.45, 95%CI: 0.20-0.84) were more favorable than placebo. With respect to acceptability, NSAIDs were more acceptable than placebo (RR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.77-0.99) and minocycline (RR=1.22, 95%CI: 1.03-1.49). For remission, NSAIDs were more superior than placebo (RR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.27-0.79) and Omega-3 FA (RR=2.01, 95%CI: 1.09-3.90), while NACs were more favorable than placebo (RR=0.39, 95%CI: 0.13-0.99). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value, corticosteroids (0.86) were the best anti-inflammatory agent for MDD patients in terms of efficacy, but the head-to-head comparisons for the efficacy of glucocorticoids and other agents were not statistically significant. As for acceptability, NSAIDs (0.81) were much better than other anti-inflammatory agents. Besides, NAC (0.80) was the best anti-inflammatory agent in the terms of remission. Conclusions: In summary, we found that corticosteroids were more superior than other agents in terms of efficacy according to the SUCRA value. However, this result must be interpreted with caution because the head-to-head comparisons for the efficacy of glucocorticoids and other agents did not reach statistical significance. NSAIDs were recommended for acceptability and NAC for remission rate.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from randomised controlled studies, to re-examine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adult depression.Methods and findingsWe conducted systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase up to November 2012, and identified additional studies through earlier meta-analyses and the references of included studies. We identified 198 studies, including 15,118 adult patients with depression, and coded moderator variables. Each of the seven psychotherapeutic interventions was superior to a waitlist control condition with moderate to large effects (range d?=?-0.62 to d?=?-0.92). Relative effects of different psychotherapeutic interventions on depressive symptoms were absent to small (range d?=?0.01 to d?=?-0.30). Interpersonal therapy was significantly more effective than supportive therapy (d?=?-0.30, 95% credibility interval [CrI] [-0.54 to -0.05]). Moderator analysis showed that patient characteristics had no influence on treatment effects, but identified aspects of study quality and sample size as effect modifiers. Smaller effects were found in studies of at least moderate (?d?=?0.29 [-0.01 to 0.58]; p?=?0.063) and large size (?d?=?0.33 [0.08 to 0.61]; p?=?0.012) and those that had adequate outcome assessment (?d?=?0.38 [-0.06 to 0.87]; p?=?0.100). Stepwise restriction of analyses by sample size showed robust effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy (all d>0.46) compared to waitlist. Empirical evidence from large studies was unavailable or limited for other psychotherapeutic interventions.ConclusionsOverall our results are consistent with the notion that different psychotherapeutic interventions for depression have comparable benefits. However, the robustness of the evidence varies considerably between different psychotherapeutic treatments.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To provide evidence for medical management of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in China based on comparisons of all clinical practical interventions using Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS:We conducted a systematic literature review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database (inception to May 2019) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CIC in Chinese people. Only RCTs that recruited participants aged over 18 and diagnosed with CIC by the Rome II, III or IV criteria were included. We used three outcomes to examine efficacy. The risk ratio (RR) of the responder rate, based on ≥3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week after treatment, was the primary outcome, and the SBM count per week and the Bristol score (BS) were secondary outcomes. In addition, adverse effects (AEs) were also considered a secondary outcome to evaluate safety. We conducted Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects, and the RR or mean difference with its 95% credible interval was calculated. In addition, we ranked all treatments via their cumulative curves (SUCRA) and assessed the quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria. RESULTS:We included a total of 42 trials (6820 participants) of 20 grouped interventions that included pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments. For the primary outcome, fourteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and Probiotics plus Mosapride (PB + MP) appeared superior to others (GRADE quality of evidence: Moderate to Low), followed by Prucalopride (PP) (High to Low) and Electroacupuncture (EA) (High to Low). For SBM, Compound sodium bicarbonate suppository (CSBS) appeared to be best, with an SUCRA value of 90% (High to Low). For BS, Lactulose plus Probiotics (LT + PB) was superior to others (Moderate to Low), followed by Polyethylene glycol (PEG) (High to Moderate). Although all interventions appeared non-significant when compared with placebo in terms of adverse effects, Lactulose plus Mosapride showed greater risk than others on ranking probability. CONCLUSIONS:Given the GRADE assessment, PB + MP, PP and EA may be the priory options with moderate certainty in the quality of evidence for the primary outcome. For SBM, a CSBS may be the best option with moderate certainty in the quality of evidence. For BS, PEG may be the priory option with high certainty in the quality of evidence. However, due to a lack of high certainty in the quality of evidence, caution is needed when recommending the interventions. Because of the limitations, an increased number of trials are required for more accurate results.

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.

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:BackgroundDepressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice; however, available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions is inconclusive. Therefore, we sought to compare and rank all available treatment interventions for the acute treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents.MethodsWe did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest, CINAHL, LiLACS, international trial registries, and the websites of regulatory agencies for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials from database inception until Jan 1, 2019. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 16 antidepressants, seven psychotherapies, and five combinations of antidepressant and psychotherapy that are used for the acute treatment of children and adolescents (≤18 years old and of both sexes) with depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of fewer than ten patients were excluded. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcome measures, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using validated methods. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to any cause). We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with credible intervals (CrIs) using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020841.FindingsFrom 20 366 publications, we included 71 trials (9510 participants). Depressive disorders in most studies were moderate to severe. In terms of efficacy, fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more effective than CBT alone (-0·78, 95% CrI -1·55 to -0·01) and psychodynamic therapy (-1·14, -2·20 to -0·08), but not more effective than fluoxetine alone (-0·22, -0·86 to 0·42). No pharmacotherapy alone was more effective than psychotherapy alone. Only fluoxetine plus CBT and fluoxetine were significantly more effective than pill placebo or psychological controls (SMDs ranged from -1·73 to -0·51); and only interpersonal therapy was more effective than all psychological controls (-1·37 to -0·66). Nortriptyline (SMDs ranged from 1·04 to 2·22) and waiting list (SMDs ranged from 0·67 to 2·08) were less effective than most active interventions. In terms of acceptability, nefazodone and fluoxetine were associated with fewer dropouts than sertraline, imipramine, and desipramine (ORs ranged from 0·17 to 0·50); imipramine was associated with more dropouts than pill placebo, desvenlafaxine, fluoxetine plus CBT, and vilazodone (2·51 to 5·06). Most of the results were rated as "low" to "very low" in terms of confidence of evidence according to Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis.InterpretationDespite the scarcity of high-quality evidence, fluoxetine (alone or in combination with CBT) seems to be the best choice for the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depressive disorder in children and adolescents. However, the effects of these interventions might vary between individuals, so patients, carers, and clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of efficacy, acceptability, and suicide risk of all active interventions in young patients with depression on a case-by-case basis.FundingNational Key Research and Development Program of China.

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).