Dataset Information

Adjunctive Psychotherapy for Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review and Component Network Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Several psychotherapy protocols have been evaluated as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for patients with bipolar disorder, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.

Objective

To use systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the association of using manualized psychotherapies and therapy components with reducing recurrences and stabilizing symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder.

Data sources

Major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews) and trial registries were searched from inception to June 1, 2019, for randomized clinical trials of psychotherapy for bipolar disorder.

Study selection

Of 3255 abstracts, 39 randomized clinical trials were identified that compared pharmacotherapy plus manualized psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy plus a control intervention (eg, supportive therapy or treatment as usual) for patients with bipolar disorder.

Data extraction and synthesis

Binary outcomes (recurrence and study retention) were compared across treatments using odds ratios (ORs). For depression or mania severity scores, data were pooled and compared across treatments using standardized mean differences (SMDs) (Hedges-adjusted g using weighted pooled SDs). In component network meta-analyses, the incremental effectiveness of 13 specific therapy components was examined.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was illness recurrence. Secondary outcomes were depressive and manic symptoms at 12 months and acceptability of treatment (study retention).

Results

A total of 39 randomized clinical trials with 3863 participants (2247 of 3693 [60.8%] with data on sex were female; mean [SD] age, 36.5 [8.2] years) were identified. Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized treatments were associated with lower recurrence rates than control treatments (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74). Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was associated with reducing recurrences vs the same strategies in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94). Cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.01) and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -1.01 to 0.08) and interpersonal therapy (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -1.07 to 0.15) were associated with stabilizing depressive symptoms compared with treatment as usual. Higher study retention was associated with family or conjoint therapy (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.82) and brief psychoeducation (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85) compared with standard psychoeducation.

Conclusions and relevance

This study suggests that outpatients with bipolar disorder may benefit from skills-based psychosocial interventions combined with pharmacotherapy. Conclusions are tempered by heterogeneity in populations, treatment duration, and follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Miklowitz DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7557716 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Contingency management (CM) is a treatment for substance misuse that involves the provision of incentives. This review examines the hypothesis that adding another formal psychotherapy, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) or motivational enhancement therapy (MET), to CM improves substance use outcomes at both treatment end and at post-treatment follow-up compared with CM only. DATA SOURCES:Searches were performed in December 2017 and July 2019 of seven electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycEXTRA), as well as online trial registries and EThoS, and were followed by reference list screening. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Included studies were randomised controlled trials of adults (18-65) who were using illicit substances, alcohol or tobacco. Studies featured an experimental arm delivering CM combined with a structured evidence-based psychotherapeutic intervention and a CM-only arm. Studies published up to July 2019 were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:The primary outcome was biometrically verified point prevalent abstinence (PPA) at treatment end. Secondary outcomes included biometrically verified PPA at post-treatment follow-up and self-reported days of use at treatment end and post-treatment follow-up. Pooled risk ratios for PPA outcomes and standardised mean differences for days of use were calculated using random effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. RESULTS:12 studies (n=1654) were included. The primary analysis found no evidence of a synergistic effect in PPA at treatment end (relative risk (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; p=0.57). Sensitivity analysis of studies featuring CBT/MET also found no evidence of an effect (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; p=0.32). None of the secondary outcomes showed any evidence of benefit. CONCLUSION:The results of the meta-analyses found no evidence that combining CM with another intervention improves the short-term or long-term effects of CM treatment.

Project description:Importance:Parkinson disease (PD) manifests by motor and nonmotor symptoms, which may be preceded by mood disorders by more than a decade. Bipolar disorder (BD) is characterized by cyclic episodes of depression and mania. It is also suggested that dopamine might be relevant in the pathophysiology of BD. Objective:To assess the association of BD with a later diagnosis of idiopathic PD. Data Sources:An electronic literature search was performed of Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO from database inception to May 2019 using the terms Parkinson disease, bipolar disorder, and mania, with no constraints applied. Study Selection:Studies that reported data on the likelihood of developing PD in BD vs non-BD populations were included. Two review authors independently conducted the study selection. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Two review authors independently extracted study data. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, results were abstracted as odds ratios and 95% CIs, and heterogeneity was reported as I2. Main Outcome and Measures:Odds ratios of PD. Results:Seven studies were eligible for inclusion and included 4?374?211 participants overall. A previous diagnosis of BD increased the likelihood of a subsequent diagnosis of idiopathic PD (odds ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 2.00-5.60; I2?=?92%). A sensitivity analysis was performed by removing the studies that had a high risk of bias and also showed an increased risk of PD in people with BD (odds ratio, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.89-5.45; I2?=?94%). Preplanned subgroup analyses according to study design and diagnostic certainty failed to show a significant effect. Conclusions and Relevance:This review suggests that patients with BD have a significantly increased risk of developing PD compared with the general population. Subgroup analyses suggested a possible overestimation in the magnitude of the associations. These findings highlight the probability that BD may be associated with a later development of PD and the importance of the differential diagnosis of parkinsonism features in people with BD.