Active placebos versus antidepressants for depression

Are the results of open randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia biased? Exploratory meta- and subgroup analysis

A recent meta-epidemiological study did not reveal major differences between the results of blinded and open randomised-controlled trials (RCTs). Fewer patients may consent to double-blind RCTs than to open RCTs, compromising generalisability, making this question very important. However, the issue has not been addressed in schizophrenia. We used a database of randomised, acute-phase antipsychotic drug trials. Whenever at least one open and one blinded RCT was available for a comparison of two drugs, we contrasted the results by random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup tests. The primary outcome was overall symptoms as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, supplemented by seven secondary efficacy and side-effect outcomes. We also examined whether open RCTs were biased in favour of more recently introduced antipsychotics, less efficacious or more prone to side-effects antipsychotics, and pharmaceutical sponsors. 183 RCTs (155 blinded and 28 open) with 34715 participants comparing two active drugs were available. The results did not suggest general differences between open and blinded RCTs, which examined two active drugs. Only 12 out of 122 subgroup tests had a p-value below 0.1, four below 0.05, and if a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests had been applied, only one would have been significant. There were some exceptions which, however, did not always confirm the originally hypothesized direction of bias. Due to the relatively small number of open RCTs, our analysis is exploratory, but this fundamental question should be given more scientific attention. Currently, open RCTs should be excluded from meta-analyses, at least in sensitivity analyses.

The Montreal model: an integrative biomedical-psychedelic approach to ketamine for severe treatment-resistant depression

Background

Subanesthetic ketamine has accumulated meta-analytic evidence for rapid antidepressant effects in treatment-resistant depression (TRD), resulting in both excitement and debate. Many unanswered questions surround ketamine's mechanisms of action and its integration into real-world psychiatric care, resulting in diverse utilizations that variously resemble electroconvulsive therapy, conventional antidepressants, or serotonergic psychedelics. There is thus an unmet need for clinical approaches to ketamine that are tailored to its unique therapeutic properties.

Methods

This article presents the Montreal model, a comprehensive biopsychosocial approach to ketamine for severe TRD refined over 6 years in public healthcare settings. To contextualize its development, we review the evidence for ketamine as a biomedical and as a psychedelic treatment of depression, emphasizing each perspectives' strengths, weaknesses, and distinct methods of utilization. We then describe the key clinical experiences and research findings that shaped the model's various components, which are presented in detail.

Results

The Montreal model, as implemented in a recent randomized clinical trial, aims to synergistically pair ketamine infusions with conventional and psychedelic biopsychosocial care. Ketamine is broadly conceptualized as a brief intervention that can produce windows of opportunity for enhanced psychiatric care, as well as powerful occasions for psychological growth. The model combines structured psychiatric care and concomitant psychotherapy with six ketamine infusions, administered with psychedelic-inspired nonpharmacological adjuncts including rolling preparative and integrative psychological support.

Discussion

Our integrative model aims to bridge the biomedical-psychedelic divide to offer a feasible, flexible, and standardized approach to ketamine for TRD. Our learnings from developing and implementing this psychedelic-inspired model for severe, real-world patients in two academic hospitals may offer valuable insights for the ongoing roll-out of a range of psychedelic therapies. Further research is needed to assess the Montreal model's effectiveness and hypothesized psychological mechanisms.

No benefit of antidepressants in inpatient treatment of depression. A longitudinal, quasi-experimental field study

RATIONALE

Antidepressants (AD) are mostly considered indispensable for the treatment of major depression. The vast majority of depressive inpatients are treated with AD. However, there is a growing body of studies indicating that the effectiveness of AD is greatly overestimated due to methodological issues with the AD efficacy studies (e.g., publication bias, unintentional unblinding, confusion between withdrawal symptoms and relapse).

OBJECTIVES

The benefit of the additional use of AD in the inpatient treatment of depression with intensive cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has been investigated in a naturalistic design.

METHODS

Depressiveness was assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) during a preliminary interview (T0), at admission (T1), at discharge (T2), and at a 6-month follow-up (T3). Two study phases were compared: During Phase A, AD were recommended in accordance with the German guideline. In Phase B, AD were no longer recommended, and they were only prescribed upon explicit request from patients. In phase A (N = 574), 60.3% of all patients were taking AD at discharge. In Phase B (N = 424), 27.9% of patients were on AD at discharge. Apart from the difference in AD usage, the two treatment conditions were similar, and the samples did not significantly differ in terms of age, sex, diagnoses, history of suicide attempts, comorbid anxiety disorders, and unemployment.

RESULTS

In both study phases, BDI-II scores were strongly decreased at T2 and T3, respectively, compared with T1. The BDI-II scores of the two phases did not differ at any of the measurement time points. Depression changes were similar in both phases. In sequential multiple regression analyses with the total sample, AD were no significant predictors for the reduction of depression at either T2 or T3.

CONCLUSIONS

The inpatient CBT was effective in depression. The effectiveness of CBT is not improved by the additional use of AD. The current prescribing practices of AD should be questioned.

The role of the communicated treatment rationale on treatment outcome: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Placebo effects are a well-established phenomenon in the treatment of depression. However, the mechanism underlying these effects are not fully understood. Treatment expectations are considered one explanation for why placebos work. Treatment expectations are likely to be affected by clinician-patient interactions. This study aims to investigate the role of the communicated treatment rationale in modulating treatment expectations and its effects on the treatment outcomes of a pharmacological and a psychological active placebo intervention for depression. In this study, treatment expectations are modulated by presenting illness models that are either congruent or incongruent with the treatment intervention that follows.

METHODS

This 2 × 2 randomized controlled trial will involve patients with major depression. Participants will either receive a biological or a psychological illness model from a clinician. Following this, they are randomly assigned to receive either a pharmacological or a psychological active placebo intervention. The illness model and the treatment are either congruent or incongruent with each other, resulting in four groups. In addition, a natural course control group will be included.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide insights into the mechanism of expectation modulation in active placebo treatments for major depression. The results may provide insights for clinicians to improve their communication with patients by focusing on treatment expectations. By identifying the factors that contribute to placebo effects, this study has the potential to improve the effectiveness of existing depression treatments and reduce the burden of this highly prevalent mental health condition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial has been registered prospectively at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier: NCT04719663. Registered on January 22, 2021.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children and adolescents with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention and they are hyperactive and impulsive. Methylphenidate is the psychostimulant most often prescribed, but the evidence on benefits and harms is uncertain. This is an update of our comprehensive systematic review on benefits and harms published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to March 2022. In addition, we checked reference lists and requested published and unpublished data from manufacturers of methylphenidate.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. The search was not limited by publication year or language, but trial inclusion required that 75% or more of participants had a normal intellectual quotient (IQ > 70). We assessed two primary outcomes, ADHD symptoms and serious adverse events, and three secondary outcomes, adverse events considered non-serious, general behaviour, and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment for each trial. Six review authors including two review authors from the original publication participated in the update in 2022. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Data from parallel-group trials and first-period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses. We undertook separate analyses using end-of-last period data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA) to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 212 trials (16,302 participants randomised); 55 parallel-group trials (8104 participants randomised), and 156 cross-over trials (8033 participants randomised) as well as one trial with a parallel phase (114 participants randomised) and a cross-over phase (165 participants randomised). The mean age of participants was 9.8 years ranging from 3 to 18 years (two trials from 3 to 21 years). The male-female ratio was 3:1. Most trials were carried out in high-income countries, and 86/212 included trials (41%) were funded or partly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Methylphenidate treatment duration ranged from 1 to 425 days, with a mean duration of 28.8 days. Trials compared methylphenidate with placebo (200 trials) and with no intervention (12 trials). Only 165/212 trials included usable data on one or more outcomes from 14,271 participants. Of the 212 trials, we assessed 191 at high risk of bias and 21 at low risk of bias. If, however, deblinding of methylphenidate due to typical adverse events is considered, then all 212 trials were at high risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.61; I² = 38%; 21 trials; 1728 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -10.58 (95% CI -12.58 to -8.72) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points). The minimal clinically relevant difference is considered to be a change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS. Methylphenidate may not affect serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.67; I² = 0%; 26 trials, 3673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.31 to 2.68).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

methylphenidate may cause more adverse events considered non-serious versus placebo or no intervention (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; I² = 72%; 35 trials 5342 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.22 (CI 1.08 to 1.43). Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated general behaviour versus placebo (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.33; I² = 68%; 7 trials 792 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but may not affect quality of life (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.83; I² = 81%; 4 trials, 608 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The majority of our conclusions from the 2015 version of this review still apply. Our updated meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate versus placebo or no-intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour in children and adolescents with ADHD. There may be no effects on serious adverse events and quality of life. Methylphenidate may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events considered non-serious, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite. However, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is very low and therefore the true magnitude of effects remain unclear. Due to the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the blinding of participants and outcome assessors is particularly challenging. To accommodate this challenge, an active placebo should be sought and utilised. It may be difficult to find such a drug, but identifying a substance that could mimic the easily recognised adverse effects of methylphenidate would avert the unblinding that detrimentally affects current randomised trials. Future systematic reviews should investigate the subgroups of patients with ADHD that may benefit most and least from methylphenidate. This could be done with individual participant data to investigate predictors and modifiers like age, comorbidity, and ADHD subtypes.

Impact of active placebo controls on estimated drug effects in randomised trials: a systematic review of trials with both active placebo and standard placebo

BACKGROUND

An estimated 60% of pharmacological randomised trials use placebo control interventions to blind (i.e. mask) participants. However, standard placebos do not control for perceptible non-therapeutic effects (i.e. side effects) of the experimental drug, which may unblind participants. Trials rarely use active placebo controls, which contain pharmacological compounds designed to mimic the non-therapeutic experimental drug effects in order to reduce the risk of unblinding. A relevant improvement in the estimated effects of active placebo compared with standard placebo would imply that trials with standard placebo may overestimate experimental drug effects.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to estimate the difference in drug effects when an experimental drug is compared with an active placebo versus a standard placebo control intervention, and to explore causes for heterogeneity. In the context of a randomised trial, this difference in drug effects can be estimated by directly comparing the effect difference between the active placebo and standard placebo intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registries up to October 2020. We also searched reference lists and citations and contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared an active placebo versus a standard placebo intervention. We considered trials both with and without a matching experimental drug arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data, assessed risk of bias, scored active placebos for adequacy and risk of unintended therapeutic effect, and categorised active placebos as unpleasant, neutral, or pleasant. We requested individual participant data from the authors of four cross-over trials published after 1990 and one unpublished trial registered after 1990. Our primary inverse-variance, random-effects meta-analysis used standardised mean differences (SMDs) of active versus standard placebo for participant-reported outcomes at earliest post-treatment assessment. A negative SMD favoured the active placebo. We stratified analyses by trial type (clinical or preclinical) and supplemented with sensitivity and subgroup analyses and meta-regression. In secondary analyses, we investigated observer-reported outcomes, harms, attrition, and co-intervention outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials (1462 participants). We obtained individual participant data from four trials. Our primary analysis of participant-reported outcomes at earliest post-treatment assessment resulted in a pooled SMD of -0.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to 0.04; I2 = 31%; 14 trials), with no clear difference between clinical and preclinical trials. Individual participant data contributed 43% of the weight of this analysis. Two of seven sensitivity analyses found more pronounced and statistically significant differences; for example, in the five trials with low overall risk of bias, the pooled SMD was -0.24 (95% CI -0.34 to -0.13). The pooled SMD of observer-reported outcomes was similar to the primary analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for harms was 3.08 (95% CI 1.56 to 6.07), and for attrition, 1.22 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.03). Co-intervention data were limited. Meta-regression found no statistically significant association with adequacy of the active placebo or risk of unintended therapeutic effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a statistically significant difference between active and standard placebo control interventions in our primary analysis, but the result was imprecise and the CI compatible with a difference ranging from important to irrelevant. Furthermore, the result was not robust, because two sensitivity analyses produced a more pronounced and statistically significant difference. We suggest that trialists and users of information from trials carefully consider the type of placebo control intervention in trials with high risk of unblinding, such as those with pronounced non-therapeutic effects and participant-reported outcomes.

Baclofen for alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most widespread psychiatric disorders leading to detrimental consequences to people with this disorder and others. Worldwide, the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (30-day prevalence of at least one occasion of 60 g of pure alcohol intake among current drinkers) is estimated at 20% and the prevalence of AUD at 5% of the adult general population, with highest prevalence in Europe and North America. Therapeutic approaches, including pharmacotherapy, play an important role in treating people with AUD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of baclofen on achieving and maintaining abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption in people with AUD compared to placebo, no treatment or any other pharmacological relapse prevention treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 22 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' treatment duration and 12 weeks' overall study duration comparing baclofen for AUD treatment with placebo, no treatment or other treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. relapse, 2. frequency of use, 3. amount of use, 4. adverse events, 5. dropouts from treatment and 6. dropouts from treatment due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 7. craving, 8. anxiety, 9. depression and 10. frequency of most relevant adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs (1818 participants) with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition or International Classification of Diseases 10th edition criteria. Mean age was 46.5 years and 70% were men. Ten studies compared baclofen to placebo or another medication; seven compared two baclofen doses to placebo or another medication. Globally, 15 studies compared baclofen to placebo, two baclofen to acamprosate and two baclofen to naltrexone. In 16 studies, participants received psychosocial treatments. We judged most studies at low risk of selection, performance, detection (subjective outcome), attrition and reporting bias. Ten studies detoxified participants before treatment; in seven studies, participants were still drinking at the beginning of treatment. Treatment duration was 12 weeks for 15 RCTs and longer in two studies. Baclofen daily dose was 30 mg to 300 mg: 10 RCTs used low doses (30 mg or less); eight RCTs medium doses (above 30 and 100 mg or less) and four RCTs high doses (above 100 mg). Compared to placebo, moderate-certainty evidence found that baclofen probably decreases the risk to relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.99; 12 studies, 1057 participants). This result was confirmed among detoxified participants but not among other subgroups of participants. High-certainty evidence found that baclofen increases the percentage of days abstinent (mean difference (MD) 9.07, 95% CI 3.30 to 14.85; 16 studies, 1273 participants). This result was confirmed among all subgroups of participants except non-detoxified or those who received medium doses. There was no difference between baclofen and placebo in the other primary outcomes: heavy drinking days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.18, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.11; 13 studies, 840 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of drinks per drinking days (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.30; 9 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; 10 studies, 738 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 17 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 16 studies, 1499 participants; high-certainty evidence). These results were confirmed by subgroup analyses except than for the dropouts that resulted lower among participants who received high doses of baclofen and studies longer than 12 weeks. Compared to placebo, there was no difference in craving (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.04; 17 studies, 1275 participants), anxiety (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.11; 15 studies, 1123 participants) and depression (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.27; 11 studies, 1029 participants). Concerning the specific adverse events, baclofen increases fatigue, dizziness, somnolence/sedation, dry mouth, paraesthesia and muscle spasms/rigidity. There was no difference in the other adverse events. Compared to acamprosate, one study (60 participants) found no differences in any outcomes but the evidence was very uncertain: relapse (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; very low-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.69; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-certainty evidence) and craving (MD 5.80, 95% CI -11.84 to 23.44); and all the adverse events evaluated. Compared to naltrexone, baclofen may increase the risk of relapse (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.56; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and decrease the number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.80; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (60 participants) found no difference between baclofen and naltrexone in the dropouts at the end of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10; very low-certainty evidence), craving (MD 2.08, 95% CI -3.71 to 7.87), and all the adverse events evaluated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Baclofen likely reduces the risk of relapse to any drinking and increases the percentage of abstinent days, mainly among detoxified participants. It does not increase the number of participants with at least one adverse event, those who dropout for any reason or due to adverse events. It probably does not reduce number of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per drinking days. Current evidence suggests that baclofen may help people with AUD in maintaining abstinence. The results of comparisons of baclofen with acamprosate and naltrexone were mainly based on only one study.

Sucrose Preference Test as a Measure of Anhedonic Behavior in a Chronic Unpredictable Mild Stress Model of Depression: Outstanding Issues

Despite numerous studies on the neurobiology of depression, the etiological and pathophysiological mechanisms of this disorder remain poorly understood. A large number of animal models and tests to evaluate depressive-like behavior have been developed. Chronic unpredictable mild stress (CUMS) is the most common and frequently used model of depression, and the sucrose preference test (SPT) is one of the most common tests for assessing anhedonia. However, not all laboratories can reproduce the main effects of CUMS, especially when this refers to a decrease in sucrose preference. It is also unknown how the state of anhedonia, assessed by the SPT, relates to the state of anhedonia in patients with depression. We analyzed the literature available in the PubMed database using keywords relevant to the topic of this narrative review. We hypothesize that the poor reproducibility of the CUMS model may be due to differences in sucrose consumption, which may be influenced by such factors as differences in sucrose preference concentration threshold, water and food deprivation, and differences in animals’ susceptibility to stress. We also believe that comparisons between animal and human states of anhedonia should be made with caution because there are many inconsistencies between the two, including in assessment methods. We also tried to offer some recommendations that should improve the reproducibility of the CUMS model and provide a framework for future research.

The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of clozapine for inpatients with severe borderline personality disorder (CALMED study): a randomised placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Data from case series suggest that clozapine may benefit inpatients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), but randomised trials have not been conducted.

METHODS

Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 222 inpatients with severe BPD aged 18 or over, who had failed to respond to other antipsychotic medications. We randomly allocated participants on a 1:1 ratio to receive up to 400 mg of clozapine per day or an inert placebo using a remote web-based randomisation service. The primary outcome was total score on the Zanarini Rating scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included self-harm, aggression, resource use and costs, side effects and adverse events. We used a modified intention to treat analysis (mITT) restricted to those who took one or more dose of trial medication, using a general linear model fitted at 6 months adjusted for baseline score, allocation group and site.

RESULTS

The study closed early due to poor recruitment and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of 29 study participants, 24 (83%) were followed up at 6 months, of whom 21 (72%) were included in the mITT analysis. At 6 months, 11 (73%) participants assigned to clozapine and 6 (43%) of those assigned to placebo were still taking trial medication. Adjusted difference in mean total ZAN-BPD score at 6 months was -3.86 (95% Confidence Intervals = -10.04 to 2.32). There were 14 serious adverse events; 6 in the clozapine arm and 8 in the placebo arm of the trial. There was little difference in the cost of care between groups.

INTERPRETATION

We recruited insufficient participants to test the primary hypothesis. The study findings highlight problems in conducting placebo-controlled trials of clozapine and in using clozapine for people with BPD, outside specialist inpatient mental health units.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN18352058. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18352058.

The neural correlation of emotion recognition ability and depressive symptoms-evidence from the HCP database

INTRODUCTION

Negative bias of emotional face is the core feature of depression, but its underlying neurobiological mechanism is still unclear. The neuroimaging findings of negative emotional recognition and depressive symptoms are inconsistent.

METHODS

The neural association between depressive symptoms and negative emotional bias were analyzed by measuring the associations between resting state functional connectivity (FC), brain structures, negative emotional bias, and depressive problems. Then, we performed a mediation analysis to assess the potential overlapping neuroimaging mechanisms.

RESULTS

We found a negative correlation between depressive symptoms and emotional recognition. Secondly, the structure and function of the inferior and lateral orbitofrontal gyrus are related to depressive symptoms and emotional recognition. Thirdly, the thickness of the inferior orbitofrontal cortex and the FC between the inferior orbitofrontal gyrus and fusiform gyrus, precuneate and cingulate gyrus mediated and even predicted the interaction between emotion recognition and depressive symptoms. Finally, in response to a negative stimulus, the activation of the frontal pole and precuneus lobe associated with the inferior orbitofrontal gyrus was higher in participants with depressive symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The core brain regions centered on the inferior orbitofrontal cortex such as middle temporal gyrus, precuneus lobe, frontal pole, insula and cingulate gyrus are the potential neuroimaging basis for the interaction between depressive symptoms and emotional recognition.

Placebo effect in pharmacological management of fibromyalgia: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The management of fibromyalgia involves a combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments.

SOURCE OF DATA

Recently published literature in PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase databases.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Several pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies have been proposed for the management of fibromyalgia. However, the management of fibromyalgia remains controversial. The administration of placebo has proved to be more effective than no treatment in many clinical settings and evidence supports the 'therapeutic' effects of placebo on a wide range of symptoms.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The placebo effect is believed to impact the clinical outcomes, but its actual magnitude is controversial.

GROWING POINTS

A meta-analysis comparing pharmacological management versus placebo administration for fibromyalgia was conducted.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Drug treatment resulted to be more effective than placebo administration for the management of fibromyalgia. Nevertheless, placebo showed a beneficial effect in patients with fibromyalgia. Treatment-related adverse events occurred more frequently in the drug treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized clinical trials.

Blinding and expectancy confounds in psychedelic randomized controlled trials

Introduction: There is increasing interest in the potential for psychedelic drugs such as psilocybin, LSD and ketamine to treat several mental health disorders, with a growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) being conducted to investigate the therapeutic effectiveness of psychedelics.Areas covered: We review previous literature on expectancy effects and blinding in the context of psychedelic RCTs - literature which strongly suggest that psychedelic RCTs might be confounded by de-blinding and expectancy. We conduct systematic reviews of psychedelic RCTs using Medline, PsychInfo and EMBASE (Jan 1990 - Nov 2020) and show that currently reported psychedelic RCTs have generally not reported pre-trial expectancy, nor the success of blinding procedures.Expert opinion: While psychedelic RCTs have generally shown promising results, with large effect sizes reported, we argue that treatment effect sizes in psychedelic RCTs are likely over-estimated due to de-blinding of participants and high levels of response expectancy. We suggest that psychedelic RCTs should routinely measure de-blinding and expectancy. Careful attention should be paid to clinical trial design and the instructions given to participants to allow these confounds to be reduced, estimated and removed from effect size estimates. We urge caution in interpreting effect size estimates from extant psychedelic RCTs.

Tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder is a common psychiatric disorder causing great burden on patients and societies. Tricyclic antidepressants are frequently used worldwide to treat patients with major depressive disorder. It has repeatedly been shown that tricyclic antidepressants reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the effect is small and of questionable clinical importance. Moreover, the beneficial and harmful effects of all types of tricyclic antidepressants have not previously been systematically assessed. Therefore, we aim to investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder.

METHODS

This is a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis that will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control random errors and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers, such as CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 12 May 2021. Clinical study reports will be applied for from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing tricyclic antidepressants with 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following interventions will be assessed: amineptine, amitriptyline, amoxapine, butriptyline, cianopramine, clomipramine, desipramine, demexiptiline, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, imipramine, iprindole, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, protriptyline, tianeptine, trimipramine and quinupramine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide-attempts and non-serious adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses.

DISCUSSION

Tricyclic antidepressants are recommended by clinical guidelines and frequently used worldwide in the treatment of major depressive disorder. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021226161 .

New generation antidepressants for depression in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and physical and mental health and well-being. There is an association between major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. Antidepressant medication is used in moderate to severe depression; there is now a range of newer generations of these medications.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate, via network meta-analysis (NMA), the comparative effectiveness and safety of different newer generation antidepressants in children and adolescents with a diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) in terms of depression, functioning, suicide-related outcomes and other adverse outcomes. The impact of age, treatment duration, baseline severity, and pharmaceutical industry funding was investigated on clinician-rated depression (CDRS-R) and suicide-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)), together with Ovid Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO till March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of six to 18 year olds of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder were included. Trials that compared the effectiveness of newer generation antidepressants with each other or with a placebo were included. Newer generation antidepressants included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitors (NDDIs); and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as Odds Ratios (ORs), and continuous data as Mean Difference (MD) for the following outcomes: depression symptom severity (clinician rated), response or remission of depression symptoms, depression symptom severity (self-rated), functioning, suicide related outcomes and overall adverse outcomes. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). We used "informative statements" to standardise the interpretation and description of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included. There were no data for the two primary outcomes (depressive disorder established via clinical diagnostic interview and suicide), therefore, the results comprise only secondary outcomes. Most antidepressants may be associated with a "small and unimportant" reduction in depression symptoms on the CDRS-R scale (range 17 to 113) compared with placebo (high certainty evidence: paroxetine: MD -1.43, 95% CI -3.90, 1.04; vilazodone: MD -0.84, 95% CI -3.03, 1.35; desvenlafaxine MD -0.07, 95% CI -3.51, 3.36; moderate certainty evidence: sertraline: MD -3.51, 95% CI -6.99, -0.04; fluoxetine: MD -2.84, 95% CI -4.12, -1.56; escitalopram: MD -2.62, 95% CI -5.29, 0.04; low certainty evidence: duloxetine: MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.03, -0.37; vortioxetine: MD 0.60, 95% CI -2.52, 3.72; very low certainty evidence for comparisons between other antidepressants and placebo). There were "small and unimportant" differences between most antidepressants in reduction of depression symptoms (high- or moderate-certainty evidence). Results were similar across other outcomes of benefit. In most studies risk of self-harm or suicide was an exclusion criterion for the study. Proportions of suicide-related outcomes were low for most included studies and 95% confidence intervals were wide for all comparisons. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mirtazapine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03, 8.04), duloxetine (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72, 1.82), vilazodone (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68, 1.48), desvenlafaxine (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59, 1.52), citalopram (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.76, 3.87) or vortioxetine (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.29, 8.60) on suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is low certainty evidence that escitalopram may "at least slightly" reduce odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43, 1.84). There is low certainty evidence that fluoxetine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87, 1.86), paroxetine (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85, 3.86), sertraline (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.60, 15.22), and venlafaxine (OR 13.84, 95% CI 1.79, 106.90) may "at least slightly" increase odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is moderate certainty evidence that venlafaxine probably results in an "at least slightly" increased odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with desvenlafaxine (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) and escitalopram (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56). There was very low certainty evidence regarding other comparisons between antidepressants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, methodological shortcomings of the randomised trials make it difficult to interpret the findings with regard to the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressant medications. Findings suggest that most newer antidepressants may reduce depression symptoms in a small and unimportant way compared with placebo. Furthermore, there are likely to be small and unimportant differences in the reduction of depression symptoms between the majority of antidepressants. However, our findings reflect the average effects of the antidepressants, and given depression is a heterogeneous condition, some individuals may experience a greater response. Guideline developers and others making recommendations might therefore consider whether a recommendation for the use of newer generation antidepressants is warranted for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine, as well as fluoxetine (which is currently the only treatment recommended for first-line prescribing) could be considered as a first option. Children and adolescents considered at risk of suicide were frequently excluded from trials, so that we cannot be confident about the effects of these medications for these individuals. If an antidepressant is being considered for an individual, this should be done in consultation with the child/adolescent and their family/caregivers and it remains critical to ensure close monitoring of treatment effects and suicide-related outcomes (combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) in those treated with newer generation antidepressants, given findings that some of these medications may be associated with greater odds of these events. Consideration of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, as per guideline recommendations, remains important.

Presentation of benefits and harms of antidepressants on websites: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND:

Many people use the Internet for obtaining information about their medications.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate whether information about antidepressants on popular websites reflects the scientific evidence and enables people to make informed choices.

METHODS:

Cross-sectional study using a checklist with 14 predefined criteria of 39 websites from 10 countries.

RESULTS:

All 39 websites mentioned the benefits of antidepressants. Twenty-nine (74%) websites attributed depression to a “chemical imbalance” or claimed they could fix an imbalance. Sexual dysfunction was mentioned as a harmful effect on 23 (59%) websites while five (13%) mentioned emotional numbing. Twenty-five (64%) stated that antidepressants may cause increased suicidal ideation, but 23 (92%) of them contained incorrect information, and only two (5%) websites noted that the suicide risk is increased in people of all ages. Twenty-eight websites (72%) warned patients about withdrawal effects but only one stated that antidepressants can be addictive.

CONCLUSIONS:

None of the websites met our predefined criteria. The information was generally inaccurate and unhelpful and has potential to lead to inappropriate use and overuse of antidepressants and reduce the likelihood that people will seek better options for depression like psychotherapy.

Approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety are the most frequent indication for which antidepressants are prescribed. Long-term antidepressant use is driving much of the internationally observed rise in antidepressant consumption. Surveys of antidepressant users suggest that 30% to 50% of long-term antidepressant prescriptions had no evidence-based indication. Unnecessary use of antidepressants puts people at risk of adverse events. However, high-certainty evidence is lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of approaches to discontinuing long-term antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched all databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) until January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing approaches to discontinuation with continuation of antidepressants (or usual care) for people with depression or anxiety who are prescribed antidepressants for at least six months. Interventions included discontinuation alone (abrupt or taper), discontinuation with psychological therapy support, and discontinuation with minimal intervention. Primary outcomes were successful discontinuation rate, relapse (as defined by authors of the original study), withdrawal symptoms, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, quality of life, social and occupational functioning, and severity of illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 studies involving 4995 participants. Nearly all studies were conducted in a specialist mental healthcare service and included participants with recurrent depression (i.e. two or more episodes of depression prior to discontinuation). All included trials were at high risk of bias. The main limitation of the review is bias due to confounding withdrawal symptoms with symptoms of relapse of depression. Withdrawal symptoms (such as low mood, dizziness) may have an effect on almost every outcome including adverse events, quality of life, social functioning, and severity of illness. Abrupt discontinuation Thirteen studies reported abrupt discontinuation of antidepressant. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that abrupt discontinuation without psychological support may increase risk of relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.74; 1373 participants, 10 studies) and there is insufficient evidence of its effect on adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.99; 1012 participants, 7 studies; I² = 37%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of abrupt discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. None of these studies included successful discontinuation rate as a primary endpoint. Discontinuation by "taper" Eighteen studies examined discontinuation by "tapering" (one week or longer). Most tapering regimens lasted four weeks or less. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that "tapered" discontinuation may lead to higher risk of relapse (HR 2.97, 95% CI 2.24 to 3.93; 1546 participants, 13 studies) with no or little difference in adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.38; 1479 participants, 7 studies; I² = 0%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. Discontinuation with psychological support Four studies reported discontinuation with psychological support. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that initiation of preventive cognitive therapy (PCT), or MBCT, combined with "tapering" may result in successful discontinuation rates of 40% to 75% in the discontinuation group (690 participants, 3 studies). Data from control groups in these studies were requested but are not yet available. Low-certainty evidence suggests that discontinuation combined with psychological intervention may result in no or little effect on relapse (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19; 690 participants, 3 studies) compared to continuation of antidepressants. Withdrawal symptoms were not measured. Pooling data on adverse events was not possible due to insufficient information (3 studies). Discontinuation with minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence from one study suggests that a letter to the general practitioner (GP) to review antidepressant treatment may result in no or little effect on successful discontinuation rate compared to usual care (6% versus 8%; 146 participants, 1 study) or on relapse (relapse rate 26% vs 13%; 146 participants, 1 study). No data on withdrawal symptoms nor adverse events were provided. None of the studies used low-intensity psychological interventions such as online support or a changed pharmaceutical formulation that allows tapering with low doses over several months. Insufficient data were available for the majority of people taking antidepressants in the community (i.e. those with only one or no prior episode of depression), for people aged 65 years and older, and for people taking antidepressants for anxiety.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, relatively few studies have focused on approaches to discontinuation of long-term antidepressants. We cannot make any firm conclusions about effects and safety of the approaches studied to date. The true effect and safety are likely to be substantially different from the data presented due to assessment of relapse of depression that is confounded by withdrawal symptoms. All other outcomes are confounded with withdrawal symptoms. Most tapering regimens were limited to four weeks or less. In the studies with rapid tapering schemes the risk of withdrawal symptoms may be similar to studies using abrupt discontinuation which may influence the effectiveness of the interventions. Nearly all data come from people with recurrent depression.   There is an urgent need for trials that adequately address withdrawal confounding bias, and carefully distinguish relapse from withdrawal symptoms. Future studies should report key outcomes such as successful discontinuation rate and should include populations with one or no prior depression episodes in primary care, older people, and people taking antidepressants for anxiety and use tapering schemes longer than 4 weeks.

Neurofeedback training in major depressive disorder: A systematic review of clinical efficacy, study quality and reporting practices

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Neurofeedback training has been suggested as a potential additional treatment option for MDD patients not reaching remission from standard care (i.e., psychopharmacology and psychotherapy). Here we systematically reviewed neurofeedback studies employing electroencephalography, or functional magnetic resonance-based protocols in depressive patients. Of 585 initially screened studies, 24 were included in our final sample (N = 480 patients in experimental and N = 194 in the control groups completing the primary endpoint). We evaluated the clinical efficacy across studies and attempted to group studies according to the control condition categories currently used in the field that affect clinical outcomes in group comparisons. In most studies, MDD patients showed symptom improvement superior to the control group(s). However, most articles did not comply with the most stringent study quality and reporting practices. We conclude with recommendations on best practices for experimental designs and reporting standards for neurofeedback training.

Positive expectations predict improved mental-health outcomes linked to psychedelic microdosing

Psychedelic microdosing describes the ingestion of near-threshold perceptible doses of classic psychedelic substances. Anecdotal reports and observational studies suggest that microdosing may promote positive mood and well-being, but recent placebo-controlled studies failed to find compelling evidence for this. The present study collected web-based mental health and related data using a prospective (before, during and after) design. Individuals planning a weekly microdosing regimen completed surveys at strategic timepoints, spanning a core four-week test period. Eighty-one participants completed the primary study endpoint. Results revealed increased self-reported psychological well-being, emotional stability and reductions in state anxiety and depressive symptoms at the four-week primary endpoint, plus increases in psychological resilience, social connectedness, agreeableness, nature relatedness and aspects of psychological flexibility. However, positive expectancy scores at baseline predicted subsequent improvements in well-being, suggestive of a significant placebo response. This study highlights a role for positive expectancy in predicting positive outcomes following psychedelic microdosing and cautions against zealous inferences on its putative therapeutic value.

Comparative efficacy of placebos in short-term antidepressant trials for major depression: a secondary meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The issue of unblinded outcome-assessors and patients has repeatedly been stressed as a flaw in allegedly double-blind antidepressant trials. Unblinding bias can for example result from a drug's marked side effects. If such unblinding bias is present for a given drug, then it might be expected that the placebos of that drug are rated significantly less effective than that of other antidepressants.

METHODS

To test this hypothesis, the present exploratory analysis conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing the efficacy of 19 different placebos in placebo-controlled trials provided in the dataset by Cipriani et al. (Lancet 2018; 391: 1357-66). Primary outcome was efficacy (continuous) estimated on the standardized mean difference (SMD) scale and defined as the pre-post change on the Hamilton Depression scale (HAMD-17), on which information was available in N = 258 trials.

RESULTS

Comparative placebo ranking suggested mirtazapine-placebo (SMD -2.0 [- 5.0-1.0 95% CrI]) to be the most, and amitriptyline- (SMD 1.2 [- 1.6-3.9 95% CrI]) and trazodone- (SMD 2.1 [- 0.9-5.2 95% CrI]) placebos to be the least effective placebos. Other placebos suggested to be more effective than amitriptyline- and trazodone-placebos (based on 95% CrIs excluding zero) were citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine placebos. These NMA results were corroborated by the observation that the relative efficacy between drug and placebo was considerably larger for amitriptyline and trazodone than for instance mirtazapine, duloxetine, and venlafaxine, supported by a small and insignificant correlation between drug-efficacy and placebo-efficacy (r = - 0.202, p = 0.408).

DISCUSSION

The present exploratory NMA indicates that distinguishable side effects of older drugs may unblind outcome-assessors thus resulting in overestimation of the average drug-placebo difference and underrating bias in placebo-arms, particularly for the older antidepressant drugs amitriptyline and trazodone. If confirmed in prospective studies, these findings suggest that efficacy rankings for antidepressants are susceptible to bias and should be considered unreliable or misleading. The analysis is limited by the focus on the single-comparison placebos (76%, i.e., placebos assessed in two-arm trials), since double-comparison placebos (25%, i.e., placebos assessed in three-arm trials) are hard to interpret and therefore not included in the present interpretation. Another limitation is the problem of multiplicity, which was only approximately accounted for in the Bayesian NMA by modelling treatment effects as exchangeable.

TIDieR-Placebo: A guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls

BACKGROUND

Placebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their delivery have been shown to affect study outcomes, placebo and sham controls are rarely reported and often not matched to those of the active comparator. This can influence how beneficial or harmful the active intervention appears to be. Without adequate descriptions of placebo or sham controls, it is difficult to interpret results about the benefits and harms of active interventions within placebo-controlled trials. To overcome this problem, we developed a checklist and guide for reporting placebo or sham interventions.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We developed an initial list of items for the checklist by surveying experts in placebo research (n = 14). Because of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consulted experts in trials of drugs, surgery, physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychological interventions. We then used a multistage online Delphi process with 53 participants to determine which items were deemed to be essential. We next convened a group of experts and stakeholders (n = 16). Our main output was a modification of the existing Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist; this allows the key features of both active interventions and placebo or sham controls to be concisely summarised by researchers. The main differences between TIDieR-Placebo and the original TIDieR are the explicit requirement to describe the setting (i.e., features of the physical environment that go beyond geographic location), the need to report whether blinding was successful (when this was measured), and the need to present the description of placebo components alongside those of the active comparator.

CONCLUSIONS

We encourage TIDieR-Placebo to be used alongside TIDieR to assist the reporting of placebo or sham components and the trials in which they are used.

Pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour

BACKGROUND

This is the second updated version of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2010 and first updated in Issue 5, 2013. People with a primary brain tumour often experience depression, for which drug treatment may be prescribed. However, they are also at high risk of epileptic seizures, cognitive impairment, and fatigue, all of which are potential adverse side effects of antidepressants. The benefit, or harm, of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search to include CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to September 2019. As in the original review, we also handsearched Neuro-Oncology, Journal of Neuro-Oncology, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, and Journal of Clinical Oncology: for the current update we handsearched the latest three years of articles from these journals (up to November 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies of any pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a histologically diagnosed primary brain tumour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

No studies met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no eligible studies evaluating the benefits of any pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified no high-quality studies that investigated the value of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour. RCTs and detailed prospective studies are required to inform the effective pharmacological treatment of this common and important complication of brain tumours. Since the last version of this review none of the related new literature has provided additional information to change these conclusions.

Position statement of the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) on the value of antidepressants in the treatment of unipolar depression

This position statement will address in an evidence-based approach some of the important issues and controversies of current drug treatment of depression such as the efficacy of antidepressants, their effect on suicidality and their place in a complex psychiatric treatment strategy including psychotherapy. The efficacy of antidepressants is clinically relevant. The highest effect size was demonstrated for severe depression. Based on responder rates and based on double-blind placebo-controlled studies, the number needed to treat (NNT) is 5–7 for acute treatment and four for maintenance treatment. Monotherapy with one drug is often not sufficient and has to be followed by other antidepressants or by comedication/augmentation therapy approaches. Generally, antidepressants reduce suicidality, but under special conditions like young age or personality disorder, they can also increase suicidality. However, under the conditions of good clinical practice, the risk–benefit relationship of treatment with antidepressants can be judged as favourable also in this respect. The capacity of psychiatrists to individualise and optimise treatment decisions in terms of ‘the right drug/treatment for the right patient’ is still restricted since currently there are no sufficient powerful clinical or biological predictors which could help to achieve this goal. There is hope that in future pharmacogenetics will contribute significantly to a personalised treatment. With regard to plasma concentration, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a useful tool to optimize plasma levels therapeutic outcome. The ideal that all steps of clinical decision-making can be based on the strict rules of evidence-based medicine is far away from reality. Clinical experience so far still has a great impact.

Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials

BACKGROUND

Poorly described placebo/sham controls make it difficult to appraise active intervention benefits and harms. The 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to improve the reporting of active interventions. The extent to which TIDieR has been used to improve description of placebo or sham control is not known.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically identified and examined all placebo/sham-controlled randomised trials published in 2018 in the top six general medical journals. We reported how many of the TIDieR checklist items were used to describe the placebo/sham control(s). We supplemented this with a sample of 100 placebo/sham-controlled trials from any journal and searched Google Scholar to identify placebo/sham-controlled trials citing TIDieR.

RESULTS

We identified 94 placebo/sham-controlled trials published in the top journals in 2018. None reported using TIDieR, and none reported placebo or sham components completely. On average eight TIDieR items were addressed, with placebo/sham control name (100%) and when and how much was administered (97.9%) most commonly reported. Some items (rationale, 8.5%, whether there were modifications, 25.5%) were less often reported. In our sample of less well-cited journals, reporting was poorer (average of six items) and followed a similar pattern. Since TIDieR's first publication, six placebo-controlled trials have cited it according to Google Scholar. Two of these used the checklist to describe placebo controls; neither one completely desribed the placebo intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Placebo and sham controls are poorly described within randomised trials, and TIDieR is rarely used to guide these descriptions. We recommend developing guidelines to promote better descriptions of placebo/sham control components within clinical trials.

Benefits and harms of antipsychotic drugs in drug-naïve patients with psychosis: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To study the benefits and harms of antipsychotics in drug-naïve patients with psychosis.

METHODS

This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mortality, activities of daily living, quality of life, core psychiatric events, and relapse and recovery rates.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), two trial registers and references in potentially eligible articles.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two researchers extracted data independently. The outcomes were planned to be meta-analysed using Review Manager based on a fixed effect model.

RESULTS

Our searches resulted in 493 unique records of which 447 were clearly not eligible. We read the full text of the 46 potentially eligible articles and found one eligible trial in drug-naïve patients, which was unreliable. It was a Chinese trial comparing olanzapine with placebo in 261 patients with first-episode schizophrenia. After 12 weeks, there was an extremely large difference favouring placebo, but the authors reported the opposite, that olanzapine was effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of antipsychotics cannot be justified based on the evidence we currently have. Withdrawal effects in the placebo groups make existing placebo-controlled trials unreliable.

Subjective Versus Objective Outcomes of Antipsychotics for the Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms Associated with Dementia

BACKGROUND

Knowledge about treatment status can influence effects measured in trials when subjective scales are used.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare subjective outcomes with objective outcomes of conventional and atypical antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in dementia.

METHODS

We performed a meta-epidemiological study of 38 randomized, placebo-controlled trials. For effectiveness, we used change in NPS and response rate as subjective outcomes, while overall dropout and additional psychotropic use were used as objective outcomes. For side effects, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and somnolence were used as subjective outcomes, while dropout due to adverse events, medication use for EPS, and participants falling were used as objective outcomes.

RESULTS

Conventional antipsychotics reduced NPS more than placebo (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.49 to - 0.23), as did atypical antipsychotics (SMD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.19 to - 0.08). Response rates in the drug groups were also higher. Overall dropout did not differ between conventional antipsychotics and placebo (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% CI 0.77-1.37) or atypical antipsychotics and placebo (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89-1.14). Furthermore, additional psychotropic use did not differ. The risk of EPS was higher for conventional (OR 2.93, 95% CI 2.04-4.22) and atypical antipsychotics (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23-1.88) versus placebo, as was the risk of somnolence and dropout due to adverse events, but medication use for EPS, as well as risk of falls, was not.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of antipsychotics for NPS in dementia based on subjective scales was not confirmed using objective outcomes, in contrast to the increased risk of side effects.

Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether the conclusion of a recent systematic review and network meta-analysis (Cipriani et al) that antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo for adult depression was supported by the evidence.

DESIGN

Reanalysis of a systematic review, with meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

522 trials (116 477 participants) as reported in the systematic review by Cipriani et al and clinical study reports for 19 of these trials.

ANALYSIS

We used the Cochrane Handbook's risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence, respectively. The impact of several study characteristics and publication status was estimated using pairwise subgroup meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Several methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants were either unrecognised or underestimated in the systematic review by Cipriani et al. The effect size for antidepressants versus placebo on investigator-rated depression symptom scales was higher in trials with a 'placebo run-in' study design compared with trials without a placebo run-in design (p=0.05). The effect size of antidepressants was higher in published trials compared with unpublished trials (p<0.0001). The outcome data reported by Cipriani et al differed from the clinical study reports in 12 (63%) of 19 trials. The certainty of the evidence for the placebo-controlled comparisons should be very low according to GRADE due to a high risk of bias, indirectness of the evidence and publication bias. The mean difference between antidepressants and placebo on the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (range 0-52 points) was 1.97 points (95% CI 1.74 to 2.21).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence does not support definitive conclusions regarding the benefits of antidepressants for depression in adults. It is unclear whether antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo.

Personalized prediction of antidepressant v. placebo response: evidence from the EMBARC study

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly heterogeneous condition in terms of symptom presentation and, likely, underlying pathophysiology. Accordingly, it is possible that only certain individuals with MDD are well-suited to antidepressants. A potentially fruitful approach to parsing this heterogeneity is to focus on promising endophenotypes of depression, such as neuroticism, anhedonia, and cognitive control deficits.

METHODS

Within an 8-week multisite trial of sertraline v. placebo for depressed adults (n = 216), we examined whether the combination of machine learning with a Personalized Advantage Index (PAI) can generate individualized treatment recommendations on the basis of endophenotype profiles coupled with clinical and demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Five pre-treatment variables moderated treatment response. Higher depression severity and neuroticism, older age, less impairment in cognitive control, and being employed were each associated with better outcomes to sertraline than placebo. Across 1000 iterations of a 10-fold cross-validation, the PAI model predicted that 31% of the sample would exhibit a clinically meaningful advantage [post-treatment Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) difference ⩾3] with sertraline relative to placebo. Although there were no overall outcome differences between treatment groups (d = 0.15), those identified as optimally suited to sertraline at pre-treatment had better week 8 HRSD scores if randomized to sertraline (10.7) than placebo (14.7) (d = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

A subset of MDD patients optimally suited to sertraline can be identified on the basis of pre-treatment characteristics. This model must be tested prospectively before it can be used to inform treatment selection. However, findings demonstrate the potential to improve individual outcomes through algorithm-guided treatment recommendations.

Antidepressant use in pregnancy: are we closer to consensus?

We specify and summarize significant data from recent large studies in a tool with which to aim at consensus on the question of whether and how serotonin-reuptake antidepressants should be used in pregnancy, on the basis that concern for the mental health of the mother should not vie for primacy with concern for the short-, medium-, and long-term health of the child, but must be best served together. Side effects are small but significant over the majority of 11 categories, perinatal and into adolescence. In clinical practice, alternatives for serotonin-reuptake medication in pregnancy should be more actively pursued.

Molecular aspects of depression: A review from neurobiology to treatment

Major depressive disorder (MDD), also known as unipolar depression, is one of the leading causes of disability and disease worldwide. The signs and symptoms are low self‑esteem, anhedonia, feeling of worthlessness, sense of rejection and guilt, suicidal thoughts, among others. This review focuses on studies with molecular-based approaches involving MDD to obtain an integrated, more detailed and comprehensive view of the brain changes produced by this disorder and its treatment and how the Central Nervous System (CNS) produces neuroplasticity to orchestrate adaptive defensive behaviors. This article integrates affective neuroscience, psychopharmacology, neuroanatomy and molecular biology data. In addition, there are two problems with current MDD treatments, namely: 1) Low rates of responsiveness to antidepressants and too slow onset of therapeutic effect; 2) Increased stress vulnerability and autonomy, which reduces the responses of currently available treatments. In the present review, we encourage the prospection of new bioactive agents for the development of treatments with post-transduction mechanisms, neurogenesis and pharmacogenetics inducers that bring greater benefits, with reduced risks and maximized access to patients, stimulating the field of research on mood disorders in order to use the potential of preclinical studies. For this purpose, improved animal models that incorporate the molecular and anatomical tools currently available can be applied. Besides, we encourage the study of drugs that do not present "classical application" as antidepressants, (e.g., the dissociative anesthetic ketamine and dextromethorphan) and drugs that have dual action mechanisms since they represent potential targets for novel drug development more useful for the treatment of MDD.

Baclofen for alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) and alcohol-related impairments belong to the most widespread psychiatric disorders leading to specific psychophysical, affective and cognitive symptoms and consequences for psychosocial well-being and health. Alcohol consumption is increasingly becoming a problem in many developing regions and AUD prevalence is estimated at 4.1% worldwide, with highest prevalence in European countries (7.5%), and the North America (6.0%). Therapeutic approaches, including pharmacotherapy, play an important role in treating patients with AUD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of baclofen for treating people with AUD, who are currently drinking, with the aim of achieving and maintaining abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two further databases and two clinical trials registries, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles. The date of the most recent search was 30 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' treatment duration and 12 weeks' overall study duration comparing baclofen for relapse prevention of AUD with placebo, no treatment or other treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs (1128 participants). All studies but three recruited fewer than 100 participants. Participants had a diagnosis of alcohol dependence according the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 criteria who were currently drinking. The mean age of participants was 48 years, and there were more men (69%), than women. All studies compared baclofen to placebo, except for one study that evaluated baclofen versus acamprosate. The included studies considered baclofen at different doses (range 10 mg a day to 150 mg a day). In all but one of the studies, participants in both the baclofen and placebo groups received psychosocial treatment or counselling of various intensity.We judged most of the studies at low risk of selection, performance, detection (subjective outcome), attrition and reporting bias.We did not find any difference between baclofen and placebo for the primary outcomes: relapse-return to any drinking (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; 5 studies, 781 participants, moderate certainty evidence); frequency of use by percentage of days abstinent (MD 0.39, 95% CI -11.51 to 12.29; 6 studies, 465 participants, low certainty evidence) and frequency of use by percentage of heavy drinking days at the end of treatment (MD 0.25, 95% CI -1.25 to 1.76; 3 studies, 186 participants, moderate certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.10; 4 studies, 430 participants, high certainty evidence); the dropout rate at the end of treatment (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.26, 8 studies, 977 participants, high certainty evidence) and dropout due to adverse events (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.07; 7 studies, 913 participants, high certainty evidence).We found evidence that baclofen increases amount of use (drink per drinking days), (MD 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.77; 2 studies, 72 participants, low certainty evidence).Among secondary outcomes, there was no difference on craving (MD 1.38, 95% CI -1.28 to 4.03, 5 studies, 469 participants), and anxiety (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.28; 5 trials, 509 participants). We found that baclofen increased depression (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.48; 3 studies, 387 participants).Concerning the specific adverse events we found that baclofen increased: vertigo (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.74; 7 studies, 858 participants), somnolence/sedation (RR 1.48, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.96; 8 studies, 946 participants), paraesthesia (RR 4.28, 95% CI 2.11 to 8.67; 4 studies, 593 participants), and muscle spasms/rigidity (RR 1.94, 95%CI 1.08 to 3.48; 3 studies, 551 participants). For all the other adverse events we did not find significant differences between baclofen and placebo.For the comparison baclofen versus acamprosate, we were only able to extract data for one outcome, craving. For this outcome, we found that baclofen increased craving compared with acamprosate (MD 14.62, 95% CI 12.72 to 16.52; 1 study, 49 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

None of the primary or secondary outcomes of the review showed evidence of a difference between baclofen and placebo. The high heterogeneity among primary studies results limits the interpretation of the summary estimate, the identification of moderators and mediators of baclofen's effects on alcohol use remains a challenge for further research. Even though some results from RCTs are promising, current evidence remains uncertain regarding the use of baclofen as a first-line treatment for people with AUDs.

Eszopiclone for insomnia

BACKGROUND

Insomnia is a major public health issue affecting between 6% to 10% of the adult population in Western countries. Eszopiclone is a hypnotic drug belonging to a newer group of hypnotic agents, known as new generation hypnotics, which was marketed as being just as effective as benzodiazepines for this condition, while being safer and having a lower risk for abuse and dependence. It is the aim of the review to integrate evidence from randomised controlled trials and to draw conclusions on eszopiclone's efficacy and safety profile, while taking methodological features and bias risks into consideration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of eszopiclone for the treatment of insomnia compared to placebo or active control.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX and registry databases (WHO trials portal, ClinicalTrials.gov) with results incorporated from searches to 10 February 2016. To identify trials not registered in electronic databases, we contacted key informants and searched reference lists of identified studies. We ran an update search (21 February 2018) and have placed studies of interest in awaiting classification/ongoing studies. These will be incorporated into the next version of the review, as appropriate.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing eszopiclone with either placebo or active control were included in the review. Participants were adults with insomnia, as diagnosed with a standardised diagnostic system, including primary insomnia and comorbid insomnia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted outcome data; one reviewer assessed trial quality and the second author cross-checked it.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 14 RCTs, with 4732 participants, were included in this review covering short-term (≤ 4 weeks; 6 studies), medium-term (> 4 weeks ≤ 6 months; 6 studies) and long-term treatment (> 6 months; 2 studies) with eszopiclone. Most RCTs included in the review included participants aged between 18 and 64 years, three RCTs only included elderly participants (64 to 85 years) and one RCT included participants with a broader age range (35 to 85 years). Seven studies considered primary insomnia; the remaining studies considered secondary insomnia comorbid with depression (2), generalised anxiety (1), back pain (1), Parkinson's disease (1), rheumatoid arthritis (1) and menopausal transition (1).Meta-analytic integrations of participant-reported data on sleep efficacy outcomes demonstrated better results for eszopiclone compared to placebo: a 12-minute decrease of sleep onset latency (mean difference (MD) -11.94 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.03 to -7.86; 9 studies, 2890 participants, moderate quality evidence), a 17-minute decrease of wake time after sleep onset (MD -17.02 min, 95% CI -24.89 to -9.15; 8 studies, 2295 participants, moderate quality evidence) and a 28-minute increase of total sleep time (MD 27.70 min, 95% CI 20.30 to 35.09; 10 studies, 2965 participants, moderate quality evidence). There were no significant changes from baseline to the first three nights after drug discontinuation for sleep onset latency (MD 17.00 min, 95% CI -4.29 to 38.29; 1 study, 291 participants, low quality evidence) and wake time after sleep onset (MD -6.71 min, 95% CI -21.25 to 7.83; 1 study, 291 participants, low quality evidence). Adverse events during treatment that were documented more frequently under eszopiclone compared to placebo included unpleasant taste (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.21; 9 studies, 3787 participants), dry mouth (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06; 6 studies, 2802 participants), somnolence (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06; 8 studies, 3532 participants) and dizziness (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05; 7 studies, 2933 participants). According to the GRADE criteria, evidence was rated as being of moderate quality for sleep efficacy outcomes and adverse events and of low quality for rebound effects and next-day functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Eszopiclone appears to be an efficient drug with moderate effects on sleep onset and maintenance. There was no or little evidence of harm if taken as recommended. However, as certain patient subgroups were underrepresented in RCTs included in the review, findings might not have displayed the entire spectrum of possible adverse events. Further, increased caution is required in elderly individuals with cognitive and motor impairments and individuals who are at increased risk of using eszopiclone in a non-recommended way.

Efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the absence of side effects: a mega-analysis of citalopram and paroxetine in adult depression

It has been suggested that the superiority of antidepressants over placebo in controlled trials is merely a consequence of side effects enhancing the expectation of improvement by making the patient realize that he/she is not on placebo. We explored this hypothesis in a patient-level post hoc-analysis including all industry-sponsored, Food and Drug Administration-registered placebo-controlled trials of citalopram or paroxetine in adult major depression that used the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and included a week 6 symptom assessment (n=15). The primary analyses, which compared completers on active treatment without early adverse events to completers on placebo (with or without adverse events) with respect to reduction in the HDRS depressed mood item showed larger symptom reduction in patients given active treatment, the effect sizes being 0.48 for citalopram and 0.33 for paroxetine. In actively treated subjects reporting early adverse events, who also outperformed those given placebo, the severity of the adverse events did not predict response. Several sensitivity analyses, for example, including (i) those using change of the sum of all HDRS-17 items as effect parameter, (ii) those excluding all subjects with adverse events (that is, also those on placebo) and (iii) those based on the intention-to-treat population, were all in line with the primary analyses. The finding that both paroxetine and citalopram are clearly superior to placebo also when not producing adverse events, as well as the lack of association between adverse event severity and response, argue against the theory that antidepressants outperform placebo solely or largely because of their side effects.

Increasing effort without noticing: A randomized controlled pilot study about the ergogenic placebo effect in endurance athletes and the role of supplement salience

Purpose

Previous research shows that endurance performance can be enhanced by placebo ergogenic aids. This study investigates the ergogenic placebo response, which we define as an increase in objective and physiological effort without an increase in subjective effort, in competitive cyclists. The primary objective of this study is to explore the role of supplement salience in the ergogenic placebo response, while the secondary aim is to assess whether believing to have taken an inactive placebo supplement attenuates the desired ergogenic effect.

Methods

We employed a double-blind placebo-controlled study design and compared a high salience (pudding) to a low salience (capsules) ergogenic placebo supplement and to a no treatment control group. Thirty-four male athletes (30.0 ± 5.7 years) performed two self-regulated time trials on an isokinetic cycling ergometer, one without intervention serving as a baseline and one with intervention according to group assignment. At both time trials, power output (objective effort), blood lactate (physiological effort) and the rating of perceived exertion (subjective effort) were measured.

Results

Receiving a high salience supplement can increase physiological and objective effort without a proportional rise in subjective effort, suggesting a decoupling of perceived exertion and endurance performance. Low salience and control group both showed no such ergogenic placebo response. Athletes’ belief concerning the true nature of the ergogenic aid (inactive placebo vs. ergogenic supplement) did not influence the ergogenic placebo response.

Conclusion

High salience placebo ergogenic aids can elicit enhanced performance without the athlete noticing (exertion), and deception of athletes seems unnecessary as even believing to have received an inactive placebo supplement maintains the ergogenic placebo response.

Mechanisms of Perceived Treatment Assignment and Subsequent Expectancy Effects in a Double Blind Placebo Controlled RCT of Major Depression

Objective: It has been suggested that patients' perception of treatment assignment might serve to bias results of double blind randomized controlled trials (RCT). Most previous evidence on the effects of patients' perceptions and the mechanisms influencing these perceptions relies on cross-sectional associations. This re-analysis of a double blind, placebo controlled RCT of pharmacological treatment of major depression set out to gather longitudinal evidence on the mechanism and effects of patients' perceived treatment assignment in the pharmacological treatment of major depression. Methods: One-hundred eighty-nine outpatients with DSM-IV diagnosed major depression were randomized to SAMe 1,600-3,200 mg/d, escitalopram 10-20 mg/days, or placebo for 12 weeks. Data on depressive symptoms (17-item Hamilton Depression Scale; HDRS-17), adverse events and patients' perceived treatment assignment was collected at baseline, week 6, and week 12. The re-analysis focused on N = 166 (out of the originally included 189 participants) with available data on perceived treatment assignment. Results: As in the parent trial, depressive symptoms (HDRS-17) significantly decreased over the course of 12 weeks and there was no difference between placebo, SAMe or escitalopram. A significant number of patients changed their perceptions about treatment assignment throughout the trial, especially between baseline and week 6. Improvement in depressive symptoms, but not adverse events significantly predicted perceived treatment assignment at week 6. In turn, perceived treatment assignment at week 6, but not actual treatment, predicted further improvement in depressive symptoms at week 12. Conclusions: The current results provide longitudinal evidence that patients' perception of treatment assignment systematically change despite a double blind procedure and in turn might trigger expectancy effects with the potential to bias the validity of an RCT. Parent study grant number: R01 AT001638 Parent study ClinicalTrials. gov Identifier: NCT00101452.

Do You Believe It? Verbal Suggestions Influence the Clinical and Neural Effects of Escitalopram in Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Trial

Background

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are commonly prescribed for depression and anxiety, but their efficacy relative to placebo has been questioned. We aimed to test how manipulation of verbally induced expectancies, central for placebo, influences SSRI treatment outcome and brain activity in patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD).

Methods

We did a randomized clinical trial, within an academic medical center (Uppsala, Sweden), of individuals fulfilling the DSM-IV criteria for SAD, recruited through media advertising. Participants were 18 years or older and randomized in blocks, through a computer-generated sequence by an independent party, to nine weeks of overt or covert treatment with escitalopram (20 mg daily). The overt group received correct treatment information whereas the covert group was treated deceptively with the SSRI described, by the psychiatrist, as active placebo. The treating psychiatrist was necessarily unmasked while the research staff was masked from intervention assignment. Treatment efficacy was assessed primarily with the self-rated Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS-SR), administered at week 0, 1, 3, 6 and 9, also yielding a dichotomous estimate of responder status (clinically significant improvement). Before and at the last week of treatment, brain activity during an emotional face-matching task was assessed with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and during fMRI sessions, anticipatory speech anxiety was also assessed with the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory - State version (STAI-S). Analyses included all randomized patients with outcome data at posttreatment. This study is registered at ISRCTN, number 98890605.

Findings

Between March 17th 2014 and May 22nd 2015, 47 patients were recruited. One patient in the covert group dropped out after a few days of treatment and did not provide fMRI data, leaving 46 patients with complete outcome data. After nine weeks of treatment, overt (n = 24) as compared to covert (n = 22) SSRI administration yielded significantly better outcome on the LSAS-SR (adjusted difference 21.17, 95% CI 10.69–31.65, p < 0.0001) with more than three times higher response rate (50% vs. 14%; χ²(1) = 6.91, p = 0.009) and twice the effect size (d = 2.24 vs. d = 1.13) from pre-to posttreatment. There was no significant between-group difference on anticipatory speech anxiety (STAI-S), both groups improving with treatment. No serious adverse reactions were recorded. On fMRI outcomes, there was suggestive evidence for a differential neural response to treatment between groups in the posterior cingulate, superior temporal and inferior frontal gyri (all z thresholds exceeding 3.68, p ≤ 0.001). Reduced social anxiety with treatment correlated significantly with enhanced posterior cingulate (z threshold 3.24, p = 0.0006) and attenuated amygdala (z threshold 2.70, p = 0.003) activity.

Interpretation

The clinical and neural effects of escitalopram were markedly influenced by verbal suggestions. This points to a pronounced placebo component in SSRI-treatment of SAD and favors a biopsychosocial over a biomedical explanatory model for SSRI efficacy.

Funding resources

The Swedish Research Council for Working Life and Social Research (grant 2011-1368), the Swedish Research Council (grant 421-2013-1366), Riksbankens Jubileumsfond – the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences (grant P13-1270:1).

•

Overt surpassed covert SSRI treatment with doubled effect size and tripled response rate on the main social anxiety outcome.

•

Overt vs. covert SSRI treatment yielded different neural changes in brain areas involved in emotion-cognition interactions.

•

This study suggests that the presentation of a treatment may be as important as the treatment itself.

Using truthful or deceiving verbal instructions, we tested how expectancies influence SSRI efficacy in social anxiety disorder. The number of responders was more than three times higher after open administration of escitalopram 20 mg compared to covert administration of the drug presented as “active placebo” in a cover story. Correct vs. incorrect information about the SSRI also yielded different neural changes in brain areas involved in emotion-cognition interactions. The benefit of SSRI medication seems to be highly affected by psychological factors like positive expectancies traditionally associated with placebo. Our results favor a biopsychosocial over a biomedical explanatory model for SSRI efficacy.

[What place for placebo in clinical trials conducted on psychiatric patients?]

Placebo effect remains a crucial issue in current clinical trials. Most clinical trials rely on the hypothesis of equivalent placebo response rates in both placebo and specific drug arms ("additive model"). But contrary to this dominant and rarely questioned hypothesis, several aspects may influence placebo response. A few recent meta-analyses and reviews have shown evidence for several clinical and methodological factors, which are able to modulate placebo response. In psychiatry research, placebo response has been mainly explored through antidepressant trials. In early clinical trials, drug-placebo differences were initially significant and robust. However, more recent clinical trials have not yielded similar results, and rather show narrowed antidepressant-placebo differences. Several factors may be involved in this absence of comparability: intrinsic properties of new antidepressants, changes in clinical criteria and classifications, symptomatic remission rather than global remission criteria, industrial and institutional constraints. Moreover, results from antidepressant trials (laboratory conditions) remain hardly fully transposable to clinical routine (ecological conditions).

Depressed patients treated by homeopaths: a randomised controlled trial using the "cohort multiple randomised controlled trial" (cmRCT) design

BACKGROUND

Despite controversy regarding homeopathy, some patients consult homeopaths for depression. Evidence is required to determine whether this is an effective, acceptable and safe intervention for these patients.

METHODS

A pragmatic trial using the "cohort multiple randomised controlled trial" design was used to test the effectiveness of adjunctive treatment by homeopaths compared to usual care alone, over a period of 12 months in patients with self-reported depression. One third of patients were randomly selected for an offer of treatment provided by a homeopath. The primary outcome measure was the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included depression scores at 12 months; and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) outcome at 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

The trial over-recruited by 17% with a total of 566 patients. Forty percent took up the offer and received treatment. An intention-to-treat analysis of the offer group at 6 months reported a 1.4-point lower mean depression score than the no offer group (95% CI 0.2, 2.5, p = 0.019), with a small standardized treatment effect size (d = 0.30). Using instrumental variables analysis, a moderate treatment effect size in favour of those treated was found (d = 0.57) with a between group difference of 2.6 points (95% CI 0.5, 4.7, p = 0.018). Results were maintained at 12 months. Secondary analyses showed similar results. Similar results were found for anxiety (GAD-7). No evidence suggested any important risk involved with the intervention.

CONCLUSION

This trial provides preliminary support for both the acceptability and the effectiveness of treatment by a homeopath for patients with self-reported depression. Our results provide support for further pragmatic research to provide more precise estimates of treatment effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN02484593 . Registered on 7 January 2013.

Introduction of a National Minimum Wage Reduced Depressive Symptoms in Low-Wage Workers: A Quasi-Natural Experiment in the UK

Does increasing incomes improve health? In 1999, the UK government implemented minimum wage legislation, increasing hourly wages to at least £3.60. This policy experiment created intervention and control groups that can be used to assess the effects of increasing wages on health. Longitudinal data were taken from the British Household Panel Survey. We compared the health effects of higher wages on recipients of the minimum wage with otherwise similar persons who were likely unaffected because (1) their wages were between 100 and 110% of the eligibility threshold or (2) their firms did not increase wages to meet the threshold. We assessed the probability of mental ill health using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire. We also assessed changes in smoking, blood pressure, as well as hearing ability (control condition). The intervention group, whose wages rose above the minimum wage, experienced lower probability of mental ill health compared with both control group 1 and control group 2. This improvement represents 0.37 of a standard deviation, comparable with the effect of antidepressants (0.39 of a standard deviation) on depressive symptoms. The intervention group experienced no change in blood pressure, hearing ability, or smoking. Increasing wages significantly improves mental health by reducing financial strain in low-wage workers. © 2016 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Active placebo control groups of pharmacological interventions were rarely used but merited serious consideration: a methodological overview

OBJECTIVES

Active placebos are control interventions that mimic the side effects of the experimental interventions in randomized trials and are sometimes used to reduce the risk of unblinding. We wanted to assess how often randomized clinical drug trials use active placebo control groups; to provide a catalog, and a characterization, of such trials; and to analyze methodological arguments for and against the use of active placebo.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

An overview consisting of three thematically linked substudies. In an observational substudy, we assessed the prevalence of active placebo groups based on a random sample of 200 PubMed indexed placebo-controlled randomized drug trials published in October 2013. In a systematic review, we identified and characterized trials with active placebo control groups irrespective of publication time. In a third substudy, we reviewed publications with substantial methodological comments on active placebo groups (searches in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and HighWirePress).

RESULTS

The prevalence of trials with active placebo groups published in 2013 was 1 out of 200 (95% confidence interval: 0-2), 0.5% (0-1%). We identified and characterized 89 randomized trials (published 1961-2014) using active placebos, for example, antihistamines, anticholinergic drugs, and sedatives. Such trials typically involved a crossover design, the experimental intervention had noticeable side effects, and the outcomes were patient-reported. The use of active placebos was clustered in specific research settings and did not appear to reflect consistently the side effect profile of the experimental intervention, for example, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were compared with active placebos in pain trials but not in depression trials. We identified and analyzed 25 methods publications with substantial comments. The main argument for active placebo was to reduce risk of unblinding; the main argument against was the risk of unintended therapeutic effect.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacological active placebo control interventions are rarely used in randomized clinical trials, but they constitute a methodological tool which merits serious consideration. We suggest that active placebos are used more often in trials of drugs with noticeable side effects, especially in situations where the expected therapeutic effects are modest and the risk of bias due to unblinding is high.

Diagnoses in and out of time: historical and medical perspectives on the diagnoses of distress

Focusing on the medical approach to the subjective forms of distress, this article has a three-fold argument. First, the historical starting point of diagnosing distress was neurasthenia during the last two decades of the 19th century. Second, the diagnosis of neurasthenia that initially contained more somatic than mental symptoms was gradually replaced by the more psychologically conceptualized neuroses. Such a psychiatrization of neurosis gradually separated mental and somatic syndromes into two distinct diagnostic categories, those of mental and somatic. Third, when modern “neuroses” are seen in the framework of distress rather than disease, it provides tools for new kinds of interventions, in which the principal aim is to alleviate the subjective distress with all possible and reasonable means and methods. As the social context constitutes a crucial “etiology” to medicalized forms of distress, we need new, context-based approaches to both analyze and alleviate such distress. In our historical and medical approach to these “diagnoses of distress”, we are guided by the belief that analyzing diagnostic categories can provide important insight into the mechanisms behind our changing conceptions of health and wellbeing.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus placebo in patients with major depressive disorder. A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for major depressive disorder is unclear.

METHODS

Our objective was to conduct a systematic review assessing the effects of SSRIs versus placebo, 'active' placebo, or no intervention in adult participants with major depressive disorder. We searched for eligible randomised clinical trials in The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycLIT, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded, clinical trial registers of Europe and USA, websites of pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency until January 2016. All data were extracted by at least two independent investigators. We used Cochrane systematic review methodology, Trial Sequential Analysis, and calculation of Bayes factor. An eight-step procedure was followed to assess if thresholds for statistical and clinical significance were crossed. Primary outcomes were reduction of depressive symptoms, remission, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were suicides, suicide attempts, suicide ideation, and quality of life.

RESULTS

A total of 131 randomised placebo-controlled trials enrolling a total of 27,422 participants were included. None of the trials used 'active' placebo or no intervention as control intervention. All trials had high risk of bias. SSRIs significantly reduced the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) at end of treatment (mean difference -1.94 HDRS points; 95% CI -2.50 to -1.37; P < 0.00001; 49 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted CI -2.70 to -1.18); Bayes factor below predefined threshold (2.01*10-23). The effect estimate, however, was below our predefined threshold for clinical significance of 3 HDRS points. SSRIs significantly decreased the risk of no remission (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.91; P < 0.00001; 34 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis adjusted CI 0.83 to 0.92); Bayes factor (1426.81) did not confirm the effect). SSRIs significantly increased the risks of serious adverse events (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.75; P = 0.009; 44 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted CI 1.03 to 1.89). This corresponds to 31/1000 SSRI participants will experience a serious adverse event compared with 22/1000 control participants. SSRIs also significantly increased the number of non-serious adverse events. There were almost no data on suicidal behaviour, quality of life, and long-term effects.

CONCLUSIONS

SSRIs might have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms, but all trials were at high risk of bias and the clinical significance seems questionable. SSRIs significantly increase the risk of both serious and non-serious adverse events. The potential small beneficial effects seem to be outweighed by harmful effects.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42013004420.

Does the model of additive effect in placebo research still hold true? A narrative review

Personalised and contextualised care has been turned into a major demand by people involved in healthcare suggesting to move toward person-centred medicine. The assessment of person-centred medicine can be most effectively achieved if treatments are investigated using ‘with versus without’ person-centredness or integrative study designs. However, this assumes that the components of an integrative or person-centred intervention have an additive relationship to produce the total effect. Beecher’s model of additivity assumes an additive relation between placebo and drug effects and is thus presenting an arithmetic summation. So far, no review has been carried out assessing the validity of the additive model, which is to be questioned and more closely investigated in this review.

Initial searches for primary studies were undertaken in July 2016 using Pubmed and Google Scholar. In order to find matching publications of similar magnitude for the comparison part of this review, corresponding matches for all included reviews were sought.

A total of 22 reviews and 3 clinical and experimental studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The results pointed to the following factors actively questioning the additive model: interactions of various effects, trial design, conditioning, context effects and factors, neurobiological factors, mechanism of action, statistical factors, intervention-specific factors (alcohol, caffeine), side-effects and type of intervention.

All but one of the closely assessed publications was questioning the additive model. A closer examination of study design is necessary. An attempt in a more systematic approach geared towards solutions could be a suggestion for future research in this field.