Dataset Information

Neural effects of antidepressant medication and psychological treatments: a quantitative synthesis across three meta-analyses.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Influential theories predict that antidepressant medication and psychological therapies evoke distinct neural changes.

Aims

To test the convergence and divergence of antidepressant- and psychotherapy-evoked neural changes, and their overlap with the brain's affect network.

Method

We employed a quantitative synthesis of three meta-analyses (n = 4206). First, we assessed the common and distinct neural changes evoked by antidepressant medication and psychotherapy, by contrasting two comparable meta-analyses reporting the neural effects of these treatments. Both meta-analyses included patients with affective disorders, including major depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder. The majority were assessed using negative-valence tasks during neuroimaging. Next, we assessed whether the neural changes evoked by antidepressants and psychotherapy overlapped with the brain's affect network, using data from a third meta-analysis of affect-based neural activation.

Results

Neural changes from psychotherapy and antidepressant medication did not significantly converge on any region. Antidepressants evoked neural changes in the amygdala, whereas psychotherapy evoked anatomically distinct changes in the medial prefrontal cortex. Both psychotherapy- and antidepressant-related changes separately converged on regions of the affect network.

Conclusions

This supports the notion of treatment-specific brain effects of antidepressants and psychotherapy. Both treatments induce changes in the affect network, but our results suggest that their effects on affect processing occur via distinct proximal neurocognitive mechanisms of action.

SUBMITTER: Nord CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8481936 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Corticobasal degeneration is a scarce neurodegenerative disease, which can only be confirmed by histopathological examination. Reported to be associated with various clinical syndromes, its classical clinical phenotype is corticobasal syndrome. Due to the rareness of corticobasal syndrome/corticobasal degeneration and low numbers of patients included in single studies, meta-analyses are particularly suited to disentangle features of the clinical syndrome and histopathology. Using PubMed, we identified 11 magnetic resonance imaging studies measuring atrophy in 22 independent cohorts with 200 patients contrasted to 318 healthy controls. The anatomic likelihood estimation method was applied to reveal affected brain regions across studies. Corticobasal syndrome was related to gray matter loss in the basal ganglia/thalamus, frontal, parietal, and temporal lobes. In corticobasal degeneration patients, atrophy in the thalamus, frontal, temporal, and occipital lobes were found. Finally, in a conjunction analysis, the bilateral thalamus, the bilateral posterior frontomedian cortex, posterior midcingulate cortex and premotor area/supplementary motor area, and the left posterior superior and middle frontal gyrus/precentral gyrus were identified as areas associated with both, corticobasal syndrome and corticobasal degeneration. Remarkably, atrophy in the premotor area/supplementary motor area and posterior midcingulate/frontomedian cortex seems to be specific for corticobasal syndrome/corticobasal degeneration, whereas atrophy in the thalamus and the left posterior superior and middle frontal gyrus/precentral gyrus are also associated with other neurodegenerative diseases according to anatomic likelihood estimation method meta-analyses. Our study creates a new conceptual framework to understand, and distinguish between clinical features (corticobasal syndrome) and histopathological findings (corticobasal degeneration) by powerful data-driven meta-analytic approaches. Furthermore, it proposes regional-specific atrophy as an imaging biomarker for diagnosis of corticobasal syndrome/corticobasal degeneration ante-mortem.

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).