Selective outcome reporting and the effectiveness of psychotherapies for depression

CBT Meets Process: Assimilative Integration with Reference to Group Psychotherapy

This paper offers a brief overview of the historically predominant form of psychotherapy research both for individual and group psychotherapies, the randomized control trial (RCT), and its surrounding controversies and critiques as the backdrop from which new directions in both clinical theory building and research are being pursued, including efforts at building integrative models of treatment. The paper explores one promising integrative model, namely the incorporation of process and dynamic orientations into the province of group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and identifies challenges in implementing this model.

Biological correlates of treatment resistant depression: a review of peripheral biomarkers

Introduction

Many patients fail to respond to multiple antidepressant interventions, being defined as "treatment-resistant depression" (TRD) patients. TRD is usually associated with increased severity and chronicity of symptoms, increased risk of comorbidity, and higher suicide rates, which make the clinical management challenging. Efforts to distinguish between TRD patients and those who will respond to treatment have been unfruitful so far. Several studies have tried to identify the biological, psychopathological, and psychosocial correlates of depression, with particular attention to the inflammatory system. In this paper we aim to review available studies assessing the full range of biomarkers in TRD patients in order to reshape TRD definition and improve its diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis.

Methods

We searched the most relevant medical databases and included studies reporting original data on possible biomarkers of TRD. The keywords "treatment resistant depression" or "TRD" matched with "biomarker," "inflammation," "hormone," "cytokine" or "biological marker" were entered in PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and SCOPUS databases. Articles were included if they included a comparison with healthy controls (HC).

Results

Of the 1878 papers identified, 35 were included in the present study. Higher plasma levels of IL-6 and TNF-α were detected in TRD patients compared to HC. While only a few studies on cortisol have been found, four papers showed elevated levels of C-reactive protein among these patients and four articles focused on immunological cells. Altered kynurenine metabolism in TRD patients was reported in two studies, while contrasting results were found with regard to BDNF.

Conclusion

Only a few biological alterations correlate with TRD. TNF-α seems to be the most relevant biomarker to discriminate TRD patients from both HC and treatment-responsive MDD patients. Moreover, several discrepancies among studies have been found, due to methodological differences and the lack of a standardized diagnostic definition of TRD.

Primary-level and community worker interventions for the prevention of mental disorders and the promotion of well-being in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

There is a significant research gap in the field of universal, selective, and indicated prevention interventions for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental disorders. Barriers to closing the research gap include scarcity of skilled human resources, large inequities in resource distribution and utilization, and stigma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of delivery by primary workers of interventions for the promotion of mental health and universal prevention, and for the selective and indicated prevention of mental disorders or symptoms of mental illness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To examine the impact of intervention delivery by primary workers on resource use and costs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, PsycInfo, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 29 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary-level and/or community health worker interventions for promoting mental health and/or preventing mental disorders versus any control conditions in adults and children in LMICs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were used for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analyzed data at 0 to 1, 1 to 6, and 7 to 24 months post-intervention. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥ 0.80 large clinical effects. We evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB2.

MAIN RESULTS

Description of studies We identified 113 studies with 32,992 participants (97 RCTs, 19,570 participants in meta-analyses) for inclusion. Nineteen RCTs were conducted in low-income countries, 27 in low-middle-income countries, 2 in middle-income countries, 58 in upper-middle-income countries and 7 in mixed settings. Eighty-three RCTs included adults and 30 RCTs included children. Cadres of primary-level workers employed primary care health workers (38 studies), community workers (71 studies), both (2 studies), and not reported (2 studies). Interventions were universal prevention/promotion in 22 studies, selective in 36, and indicated prevention in 55 RCTs. Risk of bias The most common concerns over risk of bias were performance bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. Intervention effects 'Probably', 'may', or 'uncertain' indicates 'moderate-', 'low-', or 'very low-'certainty evidence. *Certainty of the evidence (using GRADE) was assessed at 0 to 1 month post-intervention as specified in the review protocol. In the abstract, we did not report results for outcomes for which evidence was missing or very uncertain. Adults Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced anxiety symptoms (MD -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.01; 1 trial, 158 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.08; 4 trials, 722 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.30; 4 trials, 223 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 547 participants) - probably slightly reduced functional impairment (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; 4 trials, 663 participants) Children Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - may improve the quality of life (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.11; 2 trials, 803 participants) - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 694 participants) - may slightly reduce depressive symptoms (MD -3.04, 95% CI -6 to -0.08; 1 trial, 160 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.41; 1 trial, 183 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD 0, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.15; 2 trials, 638 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD 4.50, 95% CI -12.05 to 21.05; 1 trial, 28 participants) - probably slightly reduced distress/PTSD symptoms (MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.77 to -0.51; 1 trial, 159 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - decreased slightly functional impairment (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10; 2 trials, 448 participants) - decreased slightly depressive symptoms (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.04; 4 trials, 771 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.76; 2 trials, 448 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicated that prevention interventions delivered through primary workers - a form of task-shifting - may improve mental health outcomes. Certainty in the evidence was influenced by the risk of bias and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. A supportive network of infrastructure and research would enhance and reinforce this delivery modality across LMICs.

Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy

Evidence-based policy uses intervention research to inform consequential decisions about resource allocation. Research findings are often published in peer-reviewed journals. Because detrimental research practices associated with closed science are common, journal articles report more false-positives and exaggerated effect sizes than would be desirable. Journal implementation of standards that promote open science-such as the transparency and openness promotion (TOP) guidelines-could reduce detrimental research practices and improve the trustworthiness of research evidence on intervention effectiveness. We evaluated TOP implementation at 339 peer-reviewed journals that have been used to identify evidence-based interventions for policymaking and programmatic decisions. Each of ten open science standards in TOP was not implemented in most journals' policies (instructions to authors), procedures (manuscript submission systems), or practices (published articles). Journals implementing at least one standard typically encouraged, but did not require, an open science practice. We discuss why and how journals could improve implementation of open science standards to safeguard evidence-based policy.

Evaluation of randomized controlled trials: a primer and tutorial for mental health researchers

BACKGROUND

Considered one of the highest levels of evidence, results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain an essential building block in mental health research. They are frequently used to confirm that an intervention "works" and to guide treatment decisions. Given their importance in the field, it is concerning that the quality of many RCT evaluations in mental health research remains poor. Common errors range from inadequate missing data handling and inappropriate analyses (e.g., baseline randomization tests or analyses of within-group changes) to unduly interpretations of trial results and insufficient reporting. These deficiencies pose a threat to the robustness of mental health research and its impact on patient care. Many of these issues may be avoided in the future if mental health researchers are provided with a better understanding of what constitutes a high-quality RCT evaluation.

METHODS

In this primer article, we give an introduction to core concepts and caveats of clinical trial evaluations in mental health research. We also show how to implement current best practices using open-source statistical software.

RESULTS

Drawing on Rubin's potential outcome framework, we describe that RCTs put us in a privileged position to study causality by ensuring that the potential outcomes of the randomized groups become exchangeable. We discuss how missing data can threaten the validity of our results if dropouts systematically differ from non-dropouts, introduce trial estimands as a way to co-align analyses with the goals of the evaluation, and explain how to set up an appropriate analysis model to test the treatment effect at one or several assessment points. A novice-friendly tutorial is provided alongside this primer. It lays out concepts in greater detail and showcases how to implement techniques using the statistical software R, based on a real-world RCT dataset.

DISCUSSION

Many problems of RCTs already arise at the design stage, and we examine some avoidable and unavoidable "weak spots" of this design in mental health research. For instance, we discuss how lack of prospective registration can give way to issues like outcome switching and selective reporting, how allegiance biases can inflate effect estimates, review recommendations and challenges in blinding patients in mental health RCTs, and describe problems arising from underpowered trials. Lastly, we discuss why not all randomized trials necessarily have a limited external validity and examine how RCTs relate to ongoing efforts to personalize mental health care.

Exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hundreds of randomised controlled trials and dozens of meta-analyses have examined psychotherapies for depression-yet not all points in the same direction. Are these discrepancies a result of specific meta-analytical decisions or do most analytical strategies reaching the same conclusion?

OBJECTIVE

We aim to solve these discrepancies by conducting a multiverse meta-analysis containing all possible meta-analyses, using all statistical methods.

STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS

We searched four bibliographical databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials), including studies published until 1 January 2022. We included all randomised controlled trials comparing psychotherapies with control conditions without restricting the type of psychotherapy, target group, intervention format, control condition and diagnosis. We defined all possible meta-analyses emerging from combinations of these inclusion criteria and estimated the resulting pooled effect sizes with fixed-effect, random-effects, 3-level, robust variance estimation, p-uniform and PET-PEESE (precision-effect test and precision-effect estimate with SE) meta-analysis models. This study was preregistered (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050197).

FINDINGS

A total of 21 563 records were screened, and 3584 full texts were retrieved; 415 studies met our inclusion criteria containing 1206 effect sizes and 71 454 participants. Based on all possible combinations between inclusion criteria and meta-analytical methods, we calculated 4281 meta-analyses. The average summary effect size for these meta-analyses was Hedges' g mean=0.56, a medium effect size, and ranged from g=-0.66 to 2.51. In total, 90% of these meta-analyses reached a clinically relevant magnitude.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The multiverse meta-analysis revealed the overall robustness of the effectiveness of psychotherapies for depression. Notably, meta-analyses that included studies with a high risk of bias, compared the intervention with wait-list control groups, and not correcting for publication bias produced larger effect sizes.

Effects of psychological treatment for depression among people not actively seeking help: a meta-analysis

Although psychological treatments have been found to be effective for depression in adults, many individuals with depression do not actively seek help. It is currently unclear whether psychological treatments are effective among those not actively seeking help. Besides, little is known about the proportion of patients who completed a screening questionnaire who end up in a clinical trial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of 52 randomized trials comparing psychotherapies for adults with a diagnosis or elevated symptoms of depression against control conditions (care-as-usual, waiting list, and other inactive treatment). Only studies recruiting participants who do not actively seek help (participants who have been recruited through screening instead of advertisements and clinical referrals) were included. To obtain an overall effect estimate of psychotherapy, we pooled all post-test differences with a random-effects model. We found that psychological treatments had a moderate to high effect on reducing depressive symptoms compared to control groups [g = 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.69]. Heterogeneity was high (I² = 75%; 95% CI 68-80). At 12 months' follow-up, the effects were small but significant (6-8 months: g = 0.33; 95% CI 0.14-0.52; 9-12 months: g = 0.24; 95% CI 0.11-0.37). As a secondary outcome, we found that 13% of patients who completed a screening questionnaire met the inclusion criteria for depression and agreed to be randomized in the trial. Based on the current evidence, psychological treatments for depression might be effective for depressed patients who are not actively seeking help.

High depression symptomatology and mental pain characterize suicidal psychiatric patients

BACKGROUND

Symptoms of depression are transdiagnostic heterogenous features frequently assessed in psychiatric disorders, that impact the response to first-line treatment and are associated with higher suicide risk. This study assessed whether severe mental pain could characterize a specific phenotype of severely depressed high-risk psychiatric patients. We also aimed to analyze differences in treatments administered.

METHODS

2,297 adult patients (1,404 females and 893 males; mean age = 43.25 years, SD = 15.15) treated in several Italian psychiatric departments. Patients were assessed for psychiatric diagnoses, mental pain, symptoms of depression, hopelessness, and suicide risk.

RESULTS

More than 23% of the patients reported high depression symptomatology and high mental pain (HI DEP/HI PAIN). Compared to patients with lower symptoms of depression, HI DEP/HI PAIN is more frequent among females admitted to an inpatient department and is associated with higher hopelessness and suicide risk. In addition, HI DEP/HI PAIN (compared to both patients with lower symptoms of depression and patients with higher symptoms of depression but lower mental pain) were more frequently diagnosed in patients with personality disorders and had different treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients reporting severe symptoms of depression and high mental pain presented a mixture of particular dangerousness (high trait hopelessness and the presence of suicide ideation with more frequency and less controllability and previous suicide behaviors). The presence of severe mental pain may act synergically in expressing a clinical phenotype that is likewise treated with a more complex therapeutic regime than that administered to those experiencing symptoms of depression without mental pain.