When Does Meta-analysis of a Network Not Work?: Fishing for Answers

A comparison of prolonged exposure therapy, pharmacotherapy, and their combination for PTSD: What works best and for whom; study protocol for a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Several efficacious psychological and pharmacological treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are available; however, the comparative effectiveness of these treatments represents a major gap in the literature. The proposed study will compare the effectiveness of two leading PTSD treatments - Prolonged Exposure (PE) therapy and pharmacotherapy with paroxetine or venlafaxine extended release - as well as the combination of PE and medication.

METHODS

In a randomized clinical trial, veterans with PTSD (N = 450) recruited across six Veterans Affairs Medical Centers will complete assessments at baseline, mid-treatment (Week 7), post-treatment (Week 14), and follow-up (Weeks 27 and 40). The primary outcome will be change in (both clinician-rated and self-reported) PTSD severity. Depression symptoms, quality of life, and functioning will also be measured and examined as secondary outcomes. Baseline demographic and clinical data will be used to develop "personalized advantage indices" (PAIs), with the goal of identifying who is most likely to benefit from which treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This planned trial will yield findings to directly inform clinical practice guidelines for PTSD, by providing comparative effectiveness data to support recommendations about what can be considered the "first-line" treatment option(s) for PTSD. Further, findings from this trial have the potential to guide treatment planning for individual patients, through implementation of PAIs developed from study data, in service of "personalized medicine."

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04961190.

Intervention strategies for ultra-high risk for psychosis: Progress in delaying the onset and reducing the impact of first-episode psychosis

Over a quarter of a century ago, the formulation of the "at risk mental state" and operational criteria to prospectively identify individuals at "clinical" or "ultra-high risk" (UHR) for psychosis created a global wave of research momentum aimed at predicting and preventing first-episode psychosis. A substantial number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to determine if transition to psychosis could be delayed or even prevented. The efficacy of a range of interventions was examined, with standard meta-analyses clearly indicating that these could at least delay transition for 1-2 years and that outcomes improve. Recently, network meta-analyses have attempted to identify the most effective intervention. These highlighted the fact that no one form of intervention is superior to the rest, a finding interpreted in such a way as to create doubts concerning the value of intervening. These doubts have been reinforced by a subsequent Cochrane review which judged the quality of the evidence as low or very low. Here, we report a narrative review of findings from RCTs and meta-analyses on the efficacy of interventions in UHR. We also critique the network meta-analyses and the Cochrane review, and indicate that many of the trials were of the highest possible quality for such research, and were published in top ranked psychiatry journals, which demand such quality. Although outcomes vary, and the UHR group is clearly heterogeneous, we highlight the clinical benefits of psychosocial treatment. The next generation of clinical trials seek to elucidate the optimal type, duration and sequence of interventions.

Pharmacological treatments for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder: A network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and acceptability

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and acceptability among drug treatments for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) through a systematic review, random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses.

METHODS

Double-blind randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions for adults with PTSD were searched from database inception through Aug. 28, 2018, on Cochrane (Central), Embase, LILACS, PILOTS, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Clinical trial registries and the websites of pharmaceutical companies were also searched. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 58 studies comprising 6766 patients randomized to 26 different interventions. Regarding efficacy, topiramate (SMD = -0.57; 95%CrI: -1.07,-0.10), risperidone (SMD = -0.53; 95%CrI: -0.93,-0.15), quetiapine (SMD = -0.59; 95%CrI: -1.06,-0.11), paroxetine (SMD = -0.35; 95%CrI: -0.48,-0.21), venlafaxine (SMD = -0.25; 95%CrI: -0.44,-0.05), fluoxetine (SMD = -0.28; 95%CrI: -0.46,-0.08), and sertraline (SMD = -0.21; 95%CrI: -0.33,-0.09) outperformed placebo. Moreover, phenelzine (RR = 3.39; 95%CrI: 1.43,11.09), lamotrigine (RR = 4.39; 95%CrI: 1.18,26.38), and fluoxetine (RR = 1.28%CrI: 1.01,1.59) outperformed placebo in terms of acceptability.

CONCLUSIONS

The NMA supports topiramate, risperidone, quetiapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine and sertraline as effective pharmacological choices for the treatment of PTSD. Quetiapine and topiramate have the shortcoming of relying on a few small studies, but the clinically meaningful change in symptoms is noteworthy and merits further investigation. Among the pharmacological treatments with evidence of efficacy compared to placebo, fluoxetine achieved a relatively high rank regarding acceptability. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest contemporary NMA on the subject and the addition of new medications is an important extension of previous meta-analyses, enabling a larger number of drug comparisons.