Predicting recurrence of depression using lifelog data: an explanatory feasibility study with a panel VAR approach

BACKGROUND

Although depression has a high rate of recurrence, no prior studies have established a method that could identify the warning signs of its recurrence.

METHODS

We collected digital data consisting of individual activity records such as location or mobility information (lifelog data) from 89 patients who were on maintenance therapy for depression for a year, using a smartphone application and a wearable device. We assessed depression and its recurrence using both the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9.

RESULTS

A panel vector autoregressive analysis indicated that long sleep time was a important risk factor for the recurrence of depression. Long sleep predicted the recurrence of depression after 3 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel vector autoregressive approach can identify the warning signs of depression recurrence; however, the convenient sampling of the present cohort may limit the scope towards drawing a generalised conclusion.

Trajectory of criterion symptoms of major depression under newly started antidepressant treatment: sleep disturbances and anergia linger on while suicidal ideas and psychomotor symptoms disappear early

OBJECTIVE

In modern psychiatry, depression is diagnosed with the diagnostic criteria; however, the trajectory of each of the criterion symptoms is unknown. This study aims to examine this.

METHODS

We made repeated assessments of the nine diagnostic criterion symptoms with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) among 2011 participants of a 25-week pragmatic randomised controlled trial of sertraline and/or mirtazapine for hitherto untreated major depressive episodes. The changes from baseline were estimated with the mixed-effects model with repeated measures. The time to disappearance of each symptom was modeled using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

The total score on PHQ-9 was 18.5 (SD = 3.9, n = 2011) at baseline, which decreased to 15.3 (5.2, n = 2011) at week 1, to 11.5 (5.9, n = 1953) at week 3, to 7.8 (6.0, n = 1927) at week 9, and to 6.0 (5.9, n = 1910) at week 25. Suicidal ideas, psychomotor symptoms decreased rapidly, while anergia and sleep disturbance also decreased but only slowly. The survival analyses confirmed the primary analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Upon initiation of antidepressant treatment, patients with newly treated major depressive episodes can expect their suicidal ideas and psychomotor symptoms to disappear first but sleep disturbances and anergia to linger on.

Antidepressants plus benzodiazepines for adults with major depression

BACKGROUND

Anxiety frequently coexists with depression and adding benzodiazepines to antidepressant treatment is common practice to treat people with major depression. However, more evidence is needed to determine whether this combined treatment is more effective and not any more harmful than antidepressants alone. It has been suggested that benzodiazepines may lose their efficacy with long-term administration and their chronic use carries risks of dependence.This is the 2019 updated version of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and previously updated in 2005. This update follows a new protocol to conform with the most recent Cochrane methodology guidelines, with the inclusion of 'Summary of findings' tables and GRADE evaluations for quality of evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of combining antidepressants with benzodiazepines compared with antidepressants alone for major depression in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to May 2019. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify any additional unpublished or ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that compared combined antidepressant plus benzodiazepine treatment with antidepressants alone for adults with major depression. We excluded studies administering psychosocial therapies targeted at depression and anxiety disorders concurrently. Antidepressants had to be prescribed, on average, at or above the minimum effective dose as presented by Hansen 2009 or according to the North American or European regulations. The combination therapy had to last at least four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We entered data into Review Manager 5. We used intention-to-treat data. We combined continuous outcome variables of depressive and anxiety severity using standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous efficacy outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Regarding the primary outcome of acceptability, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 studies published between 1978 to 2002 involving 731 participants. Six studies used tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), two studies used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), one study used another heterocyclic antidepressant and one study used TCA or heterocyclic antidepressant.Combined therapy of benzodiazepines plus antidepressants was more effective than antidepressants alone for depressive severity in the early phase (four weeks) (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.03; 10 studies, 598 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference between treatments in the acute phase (five to 12 weeks) (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.03; 7 studies, 347 participants; low-quality evidence) or in the continuous phase (more than 12 weeks) (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.35; 1 study, 50 participants; low-quality evidence). For acceptability of treatment, there was no difference in the dropouts due to any reason between combined therapy and antidepressants alone (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.07; 10 studies, 731 participants; moderate-quality evidence).For response in depression, combined therapy was more effective than antidepressants alone in the early phase (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58; 10 studies, 731 participants), but there was no evidence of a difference in the acute phase (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.35; 7 studies, 383 participants) or in the continuous phase (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.29; 1 study, 52 participants). For remission in depression, combined therapy was more effective than antidepressants alone in the early phase (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90, 10 studies, 731 participants), but there was no evidence of a difference in the acute phase (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.63; 7 studies, 383 participants) or in the continuous phase (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.16; 1 study, 52 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between combined therapy and antidepressants alone for anxiety severity in the early phase (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.67 to 0.14; 3 studies, 129 participants) or in the acute phase (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.10; 3 studies, 129 participants). No studies measured severity of insomnia. In terms of adverse effects, the dropout rates due to adverse events were lower for combined therapy than for antidepressants alone (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 10 studies, 731 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, participants in the combined therapy group reported at least one adverse effect more often than participants who received antidepressants alone (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23; 7 studies, 510 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Most domains of risk of bias in the majority of the included studies were unclear. Random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective outcome reporting were problematic due to insufficient details reported in most of the included studies and lack of availability of the study protocols. The greatest limitation in the quality of evidence was issues with attrition.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combined antidepressant plus benzodiazepine therapy was more effective than antidepressants alone in improving depression severity, response in depression and remission in depression in the early phase. However, these effects were not maintained in the acute or the continuous phase. Combined therapy resulted in fewer dropouts due to adverse events than antidepressants alone, but combined therapy was associated with a greater proportion of participants reporting at least one adverse effect.The moderate quality evidence of benefits of adding a benzodiazepine to an antidepressant in the early phase must be balanced judiciously against possible harms and consideration given to other alternative treatment strategies when antidepressant monotherapy may be considered inadequate. We need long-term, pragmatic randomised controlled trials to compare combination therapy against the monotherapy of antidepressant in major depression.

Side effect profile and comparative tolerability of 21 antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depression in adults: protocol for a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We have recently compared all second-generation as well as selected first-generation antidepressants in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of major depression. Here we present a protocol for a network meta-analysis aimed at extending these results, updating the evidence base and comparing all second-generation as well as selected first-generation antidepressants in terms of specific adverse events and tolerability in the acute treatment of major depression in adults.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include all double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing one active drug with another or with placebo in the acute treatment major depression in adults. We will compare the following active agents: agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, clomipramine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, vilazodone and vortioxetine. The main outcomes will include the total number of patients experiencing specific adverse events; experiencing serious adverse events; and experiencing at least one adverse event. Published and unpublished studies will be retrieved through relevant database searches, trial registries and websites; reference selection and data extraction will be completed by at least two independent reviewers. For each outcome we will undertake a network meta-analysis to synthesise all evidence. We will use local and global methods to evaluate consistency. We will perform all analyses in R. We will assess the quality of evidence contributing to network estimates with the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis web application.

DISCUSSION

This work will provide an in- depth analysis and an insight into the specific adverse events of individual antidepressants.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethical approval.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019128141.

Do newspapers preferentially cover biomedical studies involving national scientists?

News value theory rates geographical proximity as an important factor in the process of issue selection by journalists. But does this apply to science journalism? Previous observational studies investigating whether newspapers preferentially cover scientific studies involving national scientists have generated conflicting answers. Here we used a database of 123 biomedical studies, 113 of them involving at least one research team working in eight countries (Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States). We compiled all the newspaper articles covering these 123 studies and published in English, French, and Japanese languages. In all eight countries, we found that newspapers preferentially covered studies involving a national team. Moreover, these "national" studies on average gave rise to a larger number of newspaper articles than "foreign" studies. Finally, our study resolves the conflict with previous conclusions by providing an alternative interpretation of published observations.

Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of 21 Antidepressant Drugs for the Acute Treatment of Adults With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(Reprinted with permission from Lancet 2018; 391:1357-66).

Dismantling cognitive-behaviour therapy for panic disorder: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis

Cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) for panic disorder may consist of different combinations of several therapeutic components such as relaxation, breathing retraining, cognitive restructuring, interoceptive exposure and/or in vivo exposure. It is therefore important both theoretically and clinically to examine whether specific components of CBT or their combinations are superior to others in the treatment of panic disorder. Component network meta-analysis (NMA) is an extension of standard NMA that can be used to disentangle the treatment effects of different components included in composite interventions. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central, with supplementary searches of reference lists and clinical trial registries, for all randomized controlled trials comparing different CBT-based psychological therapies for panic disorder with each other or with control interventions. We applied component NMA to disentangle the treatment effects of different components included in these interventions. After reviewing 2526 references, we included 72 studies with 4064 participants. Interoceptive exposure and face-to-face setting were associated with better treatment efficacy and acceptability. Muscle relaxation and virtual-reality exposure were associated with significantly lower efficacy. Components such as breathing retraining and in vivo exposure appeared to improve treatment acceptability while having small effects on efficacy. The comparison of the most v. the least efficacious combination, both of which may be provided as 'evidence-based CBT,' yielded an odds ratio for the remission of 7.69 (95% credible interval: 1.75 to 33.33). Effective CBT packages for panic disorder would include face-to-face and interoceptive exposure components, while excluding muscle relaxation and virtual-reality exposure.

Optimising first- and second-line treatment strategies for untreated major depressive disorder - the SUN☺D study: a pragmatic, multi-centre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

For patients starting treatment for depression, current guidelines recommend titrating the antidepressant dosage to the maximum of the licenced range if tolerated. When patients do not achieve remission within several weeks, recommendations include adding or switching to another antidepressant. However, the relative merits of these guideline strategies remain unestablished.

METHODS

This multi-centre, open-label, assessor-blinded, pragmatic trial involved two steps. Step 1 used open-cluster randomisation, allocating clinics into those titrating sertraline up to 50 mg/day or 100 mg/day by week 3. Step 2 used central randomisation to allocate patients who did not remit after 3 weeks of treatment to continue sertraline, to add mirtazapine or to switch to mirtazapine. The primary outcome was depression severity measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) (scores between 0 and 27; higher scores, greater depression) at week 9. We applied mixed-model repeated-measures analysis adjusted for key baseline covariates.

RESULTS

Between December 2010 and March 2015, we recruited 2011 participants with hitherto untreated major depression at 48 clinics in Japan. In step 1, 970 participants were allocated to the 50 mg/day and 1041 to the 100 mg/day arms; 1927 (95.8%) provided primary outcomes. There was no statistically significant difference in the adjusted PHQ-9 score at week 9 between the 50 mg/day arm and the 100 mg/day arm (0.25 point, 95% confidence interval (CI), - 0.58 to 1.07, P = 0.55). Other outcomes proved similar in the two groups. In step 2, 1646 participants not remitted by week 3 were randomised to continue sertraline (n = 551), to add mirtazapine (n = 537) or to switch to mirtazapine (n = 558): 1613 (98.0%) provided primary outcomes. At week 9, adding mirtazapine achieved a reduction in PHQ-9 scores of 0.99 point (0.43 to 1.55, P = 0.0012); switching achieved a reduction of 1.01 points (0.46 to 1.56, P = 0.0012), both relative to continuing sertraline. Combination increased the percentage of remission by 12.4% (6.1 to 19.0%) and switching by 8.4% (2.5 to 14.8%). There were no differences in adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with new onset depression, we found no advantage of titrating sertraline to 100 mg vs 50 mg. Patients unremitted by week 3 gained a small benefit in reduction of depressive symptoms at week 9 by switching sertraline to mirtazapine or by adding mirtazapine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01109693 . Registered on 23 April 2010.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available; however, because of inadequate resources, antidepressants are used more frequently than psychological interventions. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, the websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomised controlled trials from their inception to Jan 8, 2016. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants used for the acute treatment of adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) with major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression; or patients with a serious concomitant medical illness. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy. In network meta-analysis, we used group-level data. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (treatment discontinuations due to any cause). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002291.

FINDINGS

We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·89-2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16-1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, only agomelatine (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72-0·97) and fluoxetine (0·88, 0·80-0·96) were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo, whereas clomipramine was worse than placebo (1·30, 1·01-1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in ORs between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 to 1·55 for efficacy and from 0·64 to 0·83 for acceptability, with wide CrIs on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19-1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51-0·84). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43-0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (1·30-2·32). 46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low.

INTERPRETATION

All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policy makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Cognitive and Behavioral Skills Exercises Completed by Patients with Major Depression During Smartphone Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

A strong and growing body of evidence has demonstrated the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), either face-to-face, in person, or as self-help via the Internet, for depression. However, CBT is a complex intervention consisting of several putatively effective components, and how each component may or may not contribute to the overall effectiveness of CBT is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate how the users of smartphone CBT use and benefit from various components of the program.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis from a 9-week, single-blind, randomized controlled trial that has demonstrated the effectiveness of adjunctive use of smartphone CBT (Kokoro-App) over antidepressant pharmacotherapy alone among patients with drug-resistant major depressive disorder (total n=164, standardized mean difference in depression severity at week 9=0.40, J Med Internet Res). Kokoro-App consists of three cognitive behavioral skills of self-monitoring, behavioral activation, and cognitive restructuring, with corresponding worksheets to fill in. All activities of the participants learning each session of the program and completing each worksheet were uploaded onto Kokoro-Web, which each patient could use for self-check. We examined what use characteristics differentiated the more successful users of the CBT app from the less successful ones, split at the median of change in depression severity.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients with major depression were allocated to the smartphone CBT. On average, they completed 7.0 (standard deviation [SD] 1.4) out of 8 sessions of the program; it took them 10.8 (SD 4.2) days to complete one session, during which they spent 62 min (SD 96) on the app. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of sessions completed, time spent for the program, or the number of completed self-monitoring worksheets between the beneficiaries and the nonbeneficiaries. However, the former completed more behavioral activation tasks, engaged in different types of activities, and also filled in more cognitive restructuring worksheets than the latter. Activities such as "test-drive a new car," "go to a coffee shop after lunch," or "call up an old friend" were found to be particularly rewarding. All cognitive restructuring strategies were found to significantly decrease the distress level, with "What would be your advice to a friend who has a similar problem?" found more helpful than some other strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The CBT program offered via smartphone and connected to the remote server is not only effective in alleviating depression but also opens a new avenue in gathering information of what and how each participant may utilize the program. The activities and strategies found useful in this analysis will provide valuable information in brush-ups of the program itself and of mobile health (mHealth) in general.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japanese Clinical Trials Registry UMIN CTR 000013693; https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000015984 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6u6pxVwik).

Remifentanil in electroconvulsive therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

In electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), remifentanil is often used concurrently with anesthetics. The objective of this study was to provide an up-to-date and comprehensive review on how the addition of remifentanil to anesthetics affects seizure duration and circulatory dynamics in mECT. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs that investigated seizure duration and circulatory dynamics in patients treated with ECT using anesthetics alone (non-remifentanil group) and with anesthetics plus remifentanil (remifentanil group). A total of 13 RCTs (380 patients and 1024 ECT sessions) were included. The remifentanil group showed a significantly prolonged seizure duration during ECT compared to the non-remifentanil group [motor: 9 studies, SMD = 1.25, 95 % CI (0.21, 2.29), p = 0.02; electroencephalogram: 8 studies, SMD = 0.98, 95 % CI (0.14, 1.82), p = 0.02]. The maximum systolic blood pressure (SBP) was significantly reduced in the remifentanil group compared to the non-remifentanil group [7 studies, SMD = -0.36, 95 % CI (-0.65, 0.07), p = 0.02]. Substantial heterogeneity was observed for meta-analyses for seizure durations, but a pre-planned subgroup analysis revealed that seizure duration was prolonged only when the use of the anesthetic dose was reduced in the remifentanil group. The results of our study suggest that addition of remifentanil to anesthesia in ECT may lead to prolonged seizure duration when it allows the use of reduced anesthetic doses. Further, the addition of remifentanil was associated with reduced maximum SBP.

Psychological therapies versus pharmacological interventions for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults

BACKGROUND

Panic disorder is common and deleterious to mental well-being. Psychological therapies and pharmacological interventions are both used as treatments for panic disorder with and without agoraphobia. However, there are no up-to-date reviews on the comparative efficacy and acceptability of the two treatment modalities, and such a review is necessary for improved treatment planning for this disorder.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and acceptability of psychological therapies versus pharmacological interventions for panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group Specialised Register on 11 September 2015. This register contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950 to present), Embase (1974 to present), and PsycINFO (1967 to present). We cross-checked reference lists of relevant papers and systematic reviews. We did not apply any restrictions on date, language, or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing psychological therapies with pharmacological interventions for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia as diagnosed by operationalised criteria in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved any disagreements in consultation with a third review author. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using standardised mean differences (with 95% CI). We used the random-effects model throughout.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies with a total of 966 participants in the present review. Eight of the studies were conducted in Europe, four in the USA, two in the Middle East, and one in Southeast Asia.None of the studies reported long-term remission/response (long term being six months or longer from treatment commencement).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17; 6 studies; 334 participants) or short-term response (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.86; 5 studies; 277 participants) (very low-quality evidence), and no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and SSRIs in treatment acceptability as measured using dropouts for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.22; 6 studies; 334 participants; low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and tricyclic antidepressants in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.09; 3 studies; 229 participants), short-term response (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.10; 4 studies; 270 participants), or dropouts for any reason (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30; 5 studies; 430 participants) (low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and other antidepressants in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.67; 3 studies; 135 participants; very low-quality evidence) and evidence that psychological therapies did not significantly increase or decrease the short-term response over other antidepressants (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37; 3 studies; 128 participants) or dropouts for any reason (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.65; 3 studies; 180 participants) (low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and benzodiazepines in terms of short-term remission (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.65; 3 studies; 95 participants), short-term response (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.58; 2 studies; 69 participants), or dropouts for any reason (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.36; 3 studies; 116 participants) (very low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and either antidepressant alone or antidepressants plus benzodiazepines in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05; 11 studies; 663 participants) and short-term response (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 12 studies; 800 participants) (low-quality evidence), and there was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and either antidepressants alone or antidepressants plus benzodiazepines in terms of treatment acceptability as measured by dropouts for any reason (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.51; 13 studies; 909 participants; very low-quality evidence). The risk of selection bias and reporting bias was largely unclear. Preplanned subgroup and sensitivity analyses limited to trials with longer-term, quality-controlled, or individual psychological therapies suggested that antidepressants might be more effective than psychological therapies for some outcomes.There were no data to contribute to a comparison between psychological therapies and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and subsequent adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review was often imprecise. The superiority of either therapy over the other is uncertain due to the low and very low quality of the evidence with regard to short-term efficacy and treatment acceptability, and no data were available regarding adverse effects.The sensitivity analysis and investigation of the sources of heterogeneity indicated three possible influential factors: quality control of psychological therapies, the length of intervention, and the individual modality of psychological therapies.Future studies should examine the long-term effects after intervention or treatment continuation and should provide information on risk of bias, especially with regard to selection and reporting biases.

Psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Panic disorder is characterised by the presence of recurrent unexpected panic attacks, discrete periods of fear or anxiety that have a rapid onset and include symptoms such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating and shaking. Panic disorder is common in the general population, with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 4%. A previous Cochrane meta-analysis suggested that psychological therapy (either alone or combined with pharmacotherapy) can be chosen as a first-line treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. However, it is not yet clear whether certain psychological therapies can be considered superior to others. In order to answer this question, in this review we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA), in which we compared eight different forms of psychological therapy and three forms of a control condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and acceptability of different psychological therapies and different control conditions for panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the main searches in the CCDANCTR electronic databases (studies and references registers), all years to 16 March 2015. We conducted complementary searches in PubMed and trials registries. Supplementary searches included reference lists of included studies, citation indexes, personal communication to the authors of all included studies and grey literature searches in OpenSIGLE. We applied no restrictions on date, language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on adults with a formal diagnosis of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. We considered the following psychological therapies: psychoeducation (PE), supportive psychotherapy (SP), physiological therapies (PT), behaviour therapy (BT), cognitive therapy (CT), cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), third-wave CBT (3W) and psychodynamic therapies (PD). We included both individual and group formats. Therapies had to be administered face-to-face. The comparator interventions considered for this review were: no treatment (NT), wait list (WL) and attention/psychological placebo (APP). For this review we considered four short-term (ST) outcomes (ST-remission, ST-response, ST-dropouts, ST-improvement on a continuous scale) and one long-term (LT) outcome (LT-remission/response).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

As a first step, we conducted a systematic search of all relevant papers according to the inclusion criteria. For each outcome, we then constructed a treatment network in order to clarify the extent to which each type of therapy and each comparison had been investigated in the available literature. Then, for each available comparison, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. Subsequently, we performed a network meta-analysis in order to synthesise the available direct evidence with indirect evidence, and to obtain an overall effect size estimate for each possible pair of therapies in the network. Finally, we calculated a probabilistic ranking of the different psychological therapies and control conditions for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 1432 references; after screening, we included 60 studies in the final qualitative analyses. Among these, 54 (including 3021 patients) were also included in the quantitative analyses. With respect to the analyses for the first of our primary outcomes, (short-term remission), the most studied of the included psychological therapies was CBT (32 studies), followed by BT (12 studies), PT (10 studies), CT (three studies), SP (three studies) and PD (two studies).The quality of the evidence for the entire network was found to be low for all outcomes. The quality of the evidence for CBT vs NT, CBT vs SP and CBT vs PD was low to very low, depending on the outcome. The majority of the included studies were at unclear risk of bias with regard to the randomisation process. We found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and detection bias. We also found selective outcome reporting bias to be present and we strongly suspected publication bias. Finally, we found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of researcher allegiance bias.Overall the networks appeared to be well connected, but were generally underpowered to detect any important disagreement between direct and indirect evidence. The results showed the superiority of psychological therapies over the WL condition, although this finding was amplified by evident small study effects (SSE). The NMAs for ST-remission, ST-response and ST-improvement on a continuous scale showed well-replicated evidence in favour of CBT, as well as some sparse but relevant evidence in favour of PD and SP, over other therapies. In terms of ST-dropouts, PD and 3W showed better tolerability over other psychological therapies in the short term. In the long term, CBT and PD showed the highest level of remission/response, suggesting that the effects of these two treatments may be more stable with respect to other psychological therapies. However, all the mentioned differences among active treatments must be interpreted while taking into account that in most cases the effect sizes were small and/or results were imprecise.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality, unequivocal evidence to support one psychological therapy over the others for the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults. However, the results show that CBT - the most extensively studied among the included psychological therapies - was often superior to other therapies, although the effect size was small and the level of precision was often insufficient or clinically irrelevant. In the only two studies available that explored PD, this treatment showed promising results, although further research is needed in order to better explore the relative efficacy of PD with respect to CBT. Furthermore, PD appeared to be the best tolerated (in terms of ST-dropouts) among psychological treatments. Unexpectedly, we found some evidence in support of the possible viability of non-specific supportive psychotherapy for the treatment of panic disorder; however, the results concerning SP should be interpreted cautiously because of the sparsity of evidence regarding this treatment and, as in the case of PD, further research is needed to explore this issue. Behaviour therapy did not appear to be a valid alternative to CBT as a first-line treatment for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia.

Protocol registration and selective outcome reporting in recent psychiatry trials: new antidepressants and cognitive behavioural therapies

OBJECTIVE

The selective reporting of favorable outcomes has a serious influence on our evidence base. However, this problem has not yet been systematically investigated in the field of psychiatry. Our study aimed to evaluate registration and outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of standard treatments for depression: cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or new-generation antidepressants (ADs).

METHOD

We searched for reports of RCTs examining the efficacy of CBT or AD for depression that were published between 2011 and 2013. We then compared their primary outcomes in the trial registries and those in publications.

RESULTS

We identified 170 trials. Among them, 92 trials (54.1%) were registered, 43 trials (25.3%) were properly registered, and only 32 (18.8%) trials were both properly registered and reported (the primary outcomes as recorded in the registries were reported in publications). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportions of properly registered and reported trials for CBT or AD (relative risk: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.25-1.03). High impact factor journals, commercial funding, publication of protocol, and relatively large sample size were significant predictors of proper registration and reporting.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of proper registration and reporting is still very low in depression trials.

HTR1A Polymorphisms and Clinical Efficacy of Antipsychotic Drug Treatment in Schizophrenia: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate whether HTR1A gene polymorphisms impact the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Candidate gene studies that were published in English up to August 6, 2015 were identified by a literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Google scholar. Data were pooled from individual clinical trials considering overall symptoms, positive symptoms and negative symptoms, and standard mean differences were calculated by applying a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The present meta-analysis included a total of 1281 patients from 10 studies. Three polymorphisms of HTR1A (rs6295, rs878567, and rs1423691) were selected for the analysis. In the pooled data from all studies, none of these HTR1A polymorphisms correlated significantly with either overall symptoms or positive symptoms. However, C allele carriers of the rs6295 polymorphism showed a significantly greater negative symptoms improvement than G allele carriers (P=.04, standardized mean difference =-0.14, 95％CI = 0.01 to 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our present analysis indicate that the HTR1A rs6295 polymorphism may impact negative symptoms improvement but not on either overall symptoms or positive symptoms improvement. However, this meta-analysis was based on a small number of studies and patients, and the effect size on negative symptoms was small. Given this limitation, the results should be confirmed by further investigations.

Neuropsychological Evaluation and Cerebral Blood Flow Effects of Apolipoprotein E4 in Alzheimer's Disease Patients after One Year of Treatment: An Exploratory Study

Background

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is affected by apolipoprotein E (ApoE); however, its effects assessed by means of cognitive tests and by neuroimaging have not been sufficiently studied.

Methods

We administered the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) and single-photon emission computed tomography imaging in patients with AD medicated with donepezil at baseline and after 1 year. Patients were classified as with or without ApoE4 and we evaluated the progress of AD.

Results

Analysis of covariance showed that cerebral blood flow after 1 year in subjects with ApoE4 is significantly reduced in some areas including the left lenticular nucleus, left thalamus, and right hippocampus compared with subjects without ApoE4. Paired t tests showed significantly reduced blood flow in several regions including the right hippocampus in subjects with ApoE4 and significant deterioration of ideational praxis in subjects without ApoE4.

Conclusion

This study provides evidence that supports the notion of ApoE4 playing an important role in the progress of AD.

Strategic use of new generation antidepressants for depression: SUN(^_^) D protocol update and statistical analysis plan

BACKGROUND

SUN(^_^)D, the Strategic Use of New generation antidepressants for Depression, is an assessor-blinded, parallel-group, multicenter pragmatic mega-trial to examine the optimum treatment strategy for the first- and second-line treatments for unipolar major depressive episodes. The trial has three steps and two randomizations. Step I randomization compares the minimum and the maximum dosing strategy for the first-line antidepressant. Step II randomization compares the continuation, augmentation or switching strategy for the second-line antidepressant treatment. Step III is a naturalistic continuation phase. The original protocol was published in 2011, and we hereby report its updated protocol including the statistical analysis plan.

RESULTS

We implemented two important changes to the original protocol. One is about the required sample size, reflecting the smaller number of dropouts than had been expected. Another is in the organization of the primary and secondary outcomes in order to make the report of the main trial results as pertinent and interpretable as possible for clinical practices. Due to the complexity of the trial, we plan to report the main results in two separate reports, and this updated protocol and the statistical analysis plan have laid out respective primary and secondary outcomes and their analyses. We will convene the blind interpretation committee before the randomization code is broken.

CONCLUSION

This paper presents the updated protocol and the detailed statistical analysis plan for the SUN(^_^)D trial in order to avoid reporting bias and data-driven results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01109693 (registered on 21 April 2010).

Replication and contradiction of highly cited research papers in psychiatry: 10-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Contradictions and initial overestimates are not unusual among highly cited studies. However, this issue has not been researched in psychiatry. Aims: To assess how highly cited studies in psychiatry are replicated by subsequent studies.

METHOD

We selected highly cited studies claiming effective psychiatric treatments in the years 2000 through 2002. For each of these studies we searched for subsequent studies with a better-controlled design, or with a similar design but a larger sample.

RESULTS

Among 83 articles recommending effective interventions, 40 had not been subject to any attempt at replication, 16 were contradicted, 11 were found to have substantially smaller effects and only 16 were replicated. The standardised mean differences of the initial studies were overestimated by 132%. Studies with a total sample size of 100 or more tended to produce replicable results.

CONCLUSIONS

Caution is needed when a study with a small sample size reports a large effect.

Adding smartphone-based cognitive-behavior therapy to pharmacotherapy for major depression (FLATT project): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Major depression is one of the most debilitating diseases in terms of quality of life. Less than half of patients suffering from depression can achieve remission after adequate antidepressant treatment. Another promising treatment option is cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT). However, the need for experienced therapists and substantive dedicated time prevent CBT from being widely disseminated.

In the present study, we aim to examine the effectiveness of switching antidepressants and starting a smartphone-based CBT program at the same time, in comparison to switching antidepressants only, among patients still suffering from depression after adequate antidepressant treatment.

Methods/design

A multi-center randomized trial is currently being conducted since September 2014. The smartphone-based CBT program, named the “Kokoro-App,” for major depression has been developed and its feasibility has been confirmed in a previous open study. The program consists of an introduction, 6 sessions and an epilogue, and is expected to be completed within 9 weeks by patients. In the present trial, 164 patients with DSM-5 major depressive disorder and still suffering from depressive symptoms after adequate antidepressant treatment for more than 4 weeks will be allocated to the Kokoro-App plus switching antidepressant group or the switching antidepressant alone group. The participants allocated to the latter group will receive full components of the Kokoro-App after 9 weeks.

The primary outcome is the change in the total score on the Patient Health Questionnaire through the 9 weeks of the program, as assessed at week 0, 1, 5 and 9 via telephone by blinded raters. The secondary outcomes include the change in the total score of the Beck Depression Inventory-II, change in side effects as assessed by the Frequency, Intensity and Burden of Side Effects Rating, and treatment satisfaction.

Discussion

An effective and reachable intervention may not only lead to healthier mental status among depressed patients, but also to reduced social burden from this illness. This paper outlines the background and methods of a trial that evaluates the possible additive value of a smartphone-based CBT program for treatment-resistant depression.

Trial registration

UMIN-CTR: UMIN000013693 (registered on 1 June 2014)