Psychological therapies versus antidepressant medication, alone and in combination for depression in children and adolescents.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cox GR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8556660 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Psychological therapies versus antidepressant medication, alone and in combination for depression in children and adolescents.
Cox Georgina R GR Callahan Patch P Churchill Rachel R Hunot Vivien V Merry Sally N SN Parker Alexandra G AG Hetrick Sarah E SE
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20141130 11
<h4>Background</h4>Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents and, if left untreated, are likely to recur in adulthood. Depression is highly debilitating, affecting psychosocial, family and academic functioning.<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies and antidepressant medication, alone and in combination, for the treatment of depressive disorder in children and adolescents. We have examined clinical outcomes including remission, clinician and ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6353208 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6457979 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7606914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAntidepressants are increasingly prescribed to pediatric patients with unipolar depression, but little is known about the risk of treatment-emergent mania. Previous research suggests pediatric patients may be particularly vulnerable to this adverse outcome.ObjectiveTo estimate whether pediatric patients treated with antidepressants have an increased incidence of mania/hypomania compared with patients not treated with antidepressants and to identify patient characteristics associated with the risk of mania/hypomania.Design, setting, and participantsIn a cohort study applying the target trial emulation framework, nationwide inpatient and outpatient care in Sweden from July 1, 2006, to December 31, 2019, was evaluated. Follow-up was conducted for 12 and 52 weeks after treatment initiation, with administrative follow-up ending December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed between May 1, 2022, and June 28, 2023. Individuals aged 4 to 17 years with a diagnosis of depression, but without a prior diagnosis of mania/hypomania, bipolar disorder, or psychosis or treatment with mood stabilizer (lithium, valproate, or carbamazepine), prescriptions were included.ExposuresThe treatment group included patients who initiated any antidepressant medication within 90 days of diagnosis. The control group included patients who did not initiate antidepressants within 90 days.Main outcomes and measuresDiagnosis of mania/hypomania or initiation of mood stabilizer therapy. Incidences were estimated with Kaplan-Meier estimator, and inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for group differences at baseline.ResultsThe cohort included 43 677 patients (28 885 [66%] girls); 24 573 in the treatment group and 19 104 in the control group. The median age was 15 (IQR, 14-16) years. The outcome occurred in 96 individuals by 12 weeks and in 291 by 52 weeks. The cumulative incidence of mania was 0.26% (95% CI, 0.19%-0.33%) in the treatment group and 0.20% (95% CI, 0.13%-0.27%) in the control group at 12 weeks, with a risk difference of 0.06% (95% CI, -0.04% to 0.16%). At 52 weeks, the cumulative incidence was 0.79% (95% CI, 0.68%-0.91%) in the treatment group and 0.52% (95% CI, 0.40%-0.63%) in the control group (risk difference, 0.28%; 95% CI, 0.12%-0.44%). Hospitalizations, parental bipolar disorder, and use of antipsychotics and antiepileptics were the most important predictors of mania/hypomania by 12 weeks.ConclusionThis cohort study found no evidence of treatment-emergent mania/hypomania by 12 weeks in children and adolescents. This corresponds to the time frame for antidepressants to exert their psychotropic effect. A small risk difference was found only with longer follow-up. Certain patient characteristics were associated with mania/hypomania, which warrants clinical attention.
| S-EPMC10534997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe economic cost of depression is becoming an ever more important determinant for health policy and decision makers. Internet-based interventions with and without therapist support have been found to be effective options for the treatment of mild to moderate depression. With increasing demands on health resources and shortages of mental health care professionals, the integration of cost-effective treatment options such as Internet-based programs into primary health care could increase efficiency in terms of resource use and costs.ObjectiveOur aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an Internet-based intervention (myCompass) for the treatment of mild-to-moderate depression compared to treatment as usual and cognitive behavior therapy in a stepped care model.MethodsA decision model was constructed using a cost utility framework to show both costs and health outcomes. In accordance with current treatment guidelines, a stepped care model included myCompass as the first low-intervention step in care for a proportion of the model cohort, with participants beginning from a low-intensity intervention to increasing levels of treatment. Model parameters were based on data from the recent randomized controlled trial of myCompass, which showed that the intervention reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress and improved work and social functioning for people with symptoms in the mild-to-moderate range.ResultsThe average net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated, identifying myCompass as the strategy with the highest net benefit. The mean incremental NMB per individual for the myCompass group was AUD 1165.88 compared to treatment as usual and AUD 522.58 for the cognitive behavioral therapy model.ConclusionsInternet-based interventions can provide cost-effective access to treatment when provided as part of a stepped care model. Widespread dissemination of Internet-based programs can potentially reduce demands on primary and tertiary services and reduce unmet need.
| S-EPMC4704984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effects of depression and antidepressant medication use during pregnancy on the risk of preeclampsia.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study that linked automated clinical and pharmacy databases including comprehensive electronic medical records of 21,589 pregnant Kaiser Permanente Northern California members between 2010 and 2012.ResultsThe overall risk of preeclampsia was 4.5%. The timing of antidepressant medication exposure was an important factor. A significant increase in the risk of preeclampsia emerged for women with a depression diagnosis who took antidepressant medications during the second trimester compared to women with untreated depression (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.06, 2.39) and to women without depression (aRR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.23). Similar associations existed for women who took antidepressant medications, but without depression. In contrast, depressed women with psychotherapy showed no increased risk of preeclampsia compared to women with untreated depression or no depression. There was also a statistically significant relationship between the duration of antidepressant medication use and preeclampsia. The observed association appeared stronger for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) use, although a nonsignificant trend was also noted for use of norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitors (NDRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).ConclusionStudy findings suggest that antidepressant use during pregnancy may increase the risk of preeclampsia, especially use during the second trimester.
| S-EPMC5889130 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic pain affects many children, who report severe pain, distressed mood, and disability. Psychological therapies are emerging as effective interventions to treat children with chronic or recurrent pain. This update adds recently published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to the review published in 2009.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of psychological therapies, principally cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural therapy, for reducing pain, disability, and improving mood in children and adolescents with recurrent, episodic, or persistent pain. We also assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies.Search methodsSearches were undertaken of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycLIT. We searched for RCTs in references of all identified studies, meta-analyses and reviews. Date of most recent search: March 2012.Selection criteriaRCTs with at least 10 participants in each arm post-treatment comparing psychological therapies with active treatment were eligible for inclusion (waiting list or standard medical care) for children or adolescents with episodic, recurrent or persistent pain.Data collection and analysisAll included studies were analysed and the quality of the studies recorded. All treatments were combined into one class: psychological treatments; headache and non-headache outcomes were separately analysed on three outcomes: pain, disability, and mood. Data were extracted at two time points; post-treatment (immediately or the earliest data available following end of treatment) and at follow-up (at least three months after the post-treatment assessment point, but not more than 12 months).Main resultsEight studies were added in this update of the review, giving a total of 37 studies. The total number of participants completing treatments was 1938. Twenty-one studies addressed treatments for headache (including migraine); seven for abdominal pain; four included mixed pain conditions including headache pain, two for fibromyalgia, two for pain associated with sickle cell disease, and one for juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Analyses revealed five significant effects. Pain was found to improve for headache and non-headache groups at post-treatment, and for the headache group at follow-up. Mood significantly improved for the headache group at follow-up, although, this should be interpreted with caution as there were only two small studies entered into the analysis. Finally, disability significantly improved in the non-headache group at post-treatment. There were no other significant effects.Authors' conclusionsPsychological treatments are effective in reducing pain intensity for children and adolescents (<18 years) with headache and benefits from therapy appear to be maintained. Psychological treatments also improve pain and disability for children with non-headache pain. There is limited evidence available to estimate the effects of psychological therapies on mood for children and adolescents with headache and non-headache pain. There is also limited evidence to estimate the effects on disability in children with headache. These conclusions replicate and add to those of the previous review which found psychological therapies were effective in reducing pain intensity for children with headache and non-headache pain conditions, and these effects were maintained at follow-up.
| S-EPMC3715398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: We conducted a large-scale meta-analysis and subgroup analysis to compare the effect of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with that of free-equivalent combination (FEC) therapy on medication adherence. Methods: Studies published in Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Embase up to May 2022 were identified according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary assessed outcomes were the medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC). We investigated the probability of being adherent to the prescribed treatment (MPR or PDC ≥80%) or the average estimate of these two parameters. Studies reporting such results were included in this meta-analysis. The summary measures were reported as the risk ratio (RR) and the weighted mean difference (MD) with 95% of confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. The quality of the cohort studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Of the 1,814 screened studies, 61 met the predefined inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of the results showed that compared to FEC, FDC significantly improved the medication compliance of patients by 1.29 times (95% CI:1.23-1.35, p < 0.00001). I2 of 99% represent high heterogeneity across studies. The mean difference in medication adherence between FDC and FEC was 0.10 (95% CI: 0.06-0.14, p < 0.00001) with an I2 estimate of 100%. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies that reported adherence outcomes according to disease type, period of evaluation and compliance indicators. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to exclude the results of low-quality studies, as well as studies in which there was ambiguity in the method of calculating the estimator. Conclusion: Analysis of the assessed parameters for the intention-to-treat and subgroup populations suggests that FDC can improve adherence to treatment and its advantages over FEC may increase over time. Further research is needed to better understand how medical conditions affect the impact of reduced pill burden on adherence, particularly in diseases other than cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus.
| S-EPMC10074603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An increasing proportion of the population lives in one-person households. The authors examined whether living alone predicts the use of antidepressant medication and whether socioeconomic, psychosocial, or behavioral factors explain this association.The participants were a nationally representative sample of working-age Finns from the Health 2000 Study, totaling 1695 men and 1776 women with a mean age of 44.6 years. In the baseline survey in 2000, living arrangements (living alone vs. not) and potential explanatory factors, including psychosocial factors (social support, work climate, hostility), sociodemographic factors (occupational grade, education, income, unemployment, urbanicity, rental living, housing conditions), and health behaviors (smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, obesity), were measured. Antidepressant medication use was followed up from 2000 to 2008 through linkage to national prescription registers.Participants living alone had a 1.81-fold (CI = 1.46-2.23) higher purchase rate of antidepressants during the follow-up period than those who did not live alone. Adjustment for sociodemographic factors attenuated this association by 21% (adjusted OR = 1.64, CI = 1.32-2.05). The corresponding attenuation was 12% after adjustment for psychosocial factors (adjusted OR = 1.71, CI = 1.38-2.11) and 9% after adjustment for health behaviors (adjusted OR = 1.74, CI = 1.41-2.14). Gender-stratified analyses showed that in women the greatest attenuation was related to sociodemographic factors and in men to psychosocial factors.These data suggest that people living alone may be at increased risk of developing mental health problems. The public health value is in recognizing that people who live alone are more likely to have material and psychosocial problems that may contribute to excess mental health problems in this population group.
| S-EPMC3338384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe benefits and risks of augmenting or switching antidepressants in older adults with treatment-resistant depression have not been extensively studied.MethodsWe conducted a two-step, open-label trial involving adults 60 years of age or older with treatment-resistant depression. In step 1, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with aripiprazole, augmentation with bupropion, or a switch from existing antidepressant medication to bupropion. Patients who did not benefit from or were ineligible for step 1 were randomly assigned in step 2 in a 1:1 ratio to augmentation with lithium or a switch to nortriptyline. Each step lasted approximately 10 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in psychological well-being, assessed with the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales (population mean, 50; higher scores indicate greater well-being). A secondary outcome was remission of depression.ResultsIn step 1, a total of 619 patients were enrolled; 211 were assigned to aripiprazole augmentation, 206 to bupropion augmentation, and 202 to a switch to bupropion. Well-being scores improved by 4.83 points, 4.33 points, and 2.04 points, respectively. The difference between the aripiprazole-augmentation group and the switch-to-bupropion group was 2.79 points (95% CI, 0.56 to 5.02; P = 0.014, with a prespecified threshold P value of 0.017); the between-group differences were not significant for aripiprazole augmentation versus bupropion augmentation or for bupropion augmentation versus a switch to bupropion. Remission occurred in 28.9% of patients in the aripiprazole-augmentation group, 28.2% in the bupropion-augmentation group, and 19.3% in the switch-to-bupropion group. The rate of falls was highest with bupropion augmentation. In step 2, a total of 248 patients were enrolled; 127 were assigned to lithium augmentation and 121 to a switch to nortriptyline. Well-being scores improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points, respectively (difference, 0.99; 95% CI, -1.92 to 3.91). Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium-augmentation group and 21.5% in the switch-to-nortriptyline group; rates of falling were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsIn older adults with treatment-resistant depression, augmentation of existing antidepressants with aripiprazole improved well-being significantly more over 10 weeks than a switch to bupropion and was associated with a numerically higher incidence of remission. Among patients in whom augmentation or a switch to bupropion failed, changes in well-being and the occurrence of remission with lithium augmentation or a switch to nortriptyline were similar. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; OPTIMUM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02960763.).
| S-EPMC10568698 | biostudies-literature