LAC-Depressionsstudie

Evaluation of a Family-Based Intervention Program for Children of Mentally Ill Parents: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial

Background: Children of mentally ill parents have a three to seven times higher risk of developing mental disorders compared to the general population. For this high-risk group, specialized prevention and intervention programs have already been developed. However, there has been insufficient sytematic evaluation to date. Moreover, effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness data of the respective programs until today is very scarce and at the same time constitutes the pre-condition for the program's implementation into regular health care. Methods: The study consists of a two-group randomized controlled multicenter trial conducted at seven study sites throughout Germany and Switzerland. Participants are families with mentally ill parents and their children aged from 3 to 19 years. The intervention comprises 6 to 8 semi-structured sessions over a period of about 6 months. Topics discussed in the intervention include parental mental illness, coping, family relations and social support. Families in the control condition will receive treatment as usual. The children's mental health, assessed using the K-SADS-PL by blinded external raters will constitute the primary efficacy outcome. Further outcomes will be assessed from the parents' as well as from the children's perspectives. Participants are investigated at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months after baseline assessment. In addition to the assessment of various psychosocial outcomes, a comprehensive health-economic evaluation will be performed. Discussion: This paper describes the evaluation of a family-based intervention program for children of mentally ill parents (CHIMPs) in the regular health care system in Germany and Switzerland. A methodically sophisticated study design has been developed to reflect the complexity of the actual health care situation. This trial will contribute to the regular health care for the high-risk group of children of mentally ill parents. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02308462; German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00006806.

A Series of Meta-Analytic Tests of the Efficacy of Long-Term Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy

Abstract. Recent meta-analyses come to conflicting conclusions about the efficacy of long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy (LTPP). Our first goal was to reproduce the most recent meta-analysis by Leichsenring, Abbass, Luyten, Hilsenroth, and Rabung (2013) who found evidence for the efficacy of LTPP in the treatment of complex mental disorders. Our replicated effect sizes were in general slightly smaller. Second, we conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing LTPP (lasting for at least 1 year and 40 sessions) to other forms of psychotherapy in the treatment of complex mental disorders. We focused on a transparent research process according to open science standards and applied a series of elaborated meta-analytic procedures to test and control for publication bias. Our updated meta-analysis comprising 191 effect sizes from 14 eligible studies revealed small, statistically significant effect sizes at post-treatment for the outcome domains psychiatric symptoms, target problems, social functioning, and overall effectiveness (Hedges’ g ranging between 0.24 and 0.35). The effect size for the domain personality functioning (0.24) was not significant ( p = .08). No signs for publication bias could be detected. In light of a heterogeneous study set and some methodological shortcomings in the primary studies, these results should be interpreted cautiously. In conclusion, LTPP might be superior to other forms of psychotherapy in the treatment of complex mental disorders. Notably, our effect sizes represent the additional gain of LTPP versus other forms of primarily long-term psychotherapy. In this case, large differences in effect sizes are not to be expected.

Was sagt die LAC-Depressionsstudie wirklich aus?

Hintergrund

Kognitiv-behaviorale und psychodynamische Therapieverfahren befinden sich in einem Konkurrenzverhältnis, was den Nachweis ihrer Wirksamkeit angeht. Obwohl es bereits vergleichende Wirksamkeitsstudien gab, bilden diese oft nicht die Versorgungssituation in Deutschland ab. Anfang des Jahres wurden die Ergebnisse der „LAC-Depressionsstudie“ vorgelegt, die diese beiden Verfahren in einem naturalistischen Studiendesign vergleicht. Diese Ergebnisse suggerieren die gleiche Effektivität von kognitiver Verhaltenstherapie (KVT) und psychoanalytischer Therapie (PAT).

Material und Methode

Methodenkritische Betrachtung mehrerer, aus den Ergebnissen der LAC-Depressionsstudie publizierter Forschungsberichte, alternative Darstellung der primären Ergebnismaße relativ zur Anzahl der Behandlungssitzungen.

Ergebnisse

Die LAC-Depressionsstudie wich an entscheidenden Stellen vom vorher veröffentlichten Versuchsprotokoll ab. Die KVT erreicht die gleichen Ergebnisse mit deutlich weniger Therapiesitzungen. Das Versuchsdesign sowie die erreichte Stichprobengröße sind ungeeignet, um die in den Hypothesen vermuteten Effekte nachzuweisen.

Schlussfolgerungen

Aufgrund von methodischen Problemen, teils deutlichen Abweichungen vom Studienprotokoll und gravierenden Dosis-Wirkung-Unterschieden können die Ergebnisse dieser Studie jedoch nicht als Beleg für eine vermeintlich gleiche Effektivität von PAT und KVT gewertet werden.

Psychological therapies for treatment-resistant depression in adults

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are a first-line treatment for adults with moderate to severe major depression. However, many people prescribed antidepressants for depression don't respond fully to such medication, and little evidence is available to inform the most appropriate 'next step' treatment for such patients, who may be referred to as having treatment-resistant depression (TRD). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance suggests that the 'next step' for those who do not respond to antidepressants may include a change in the dose or type of antidepressant medication, the addition of another medication, or the start of psychotherapy. Different types of psychotherapies may be used for TRD; evidence on these treatments is available but has not been collated to date.Along with the sister review of pharmacological therapies for TRD, this review summarises available evidence for the effectiveness of psychotherapies for adults (18 to 74 years) with TRD with the goal of establishing the best 'next step' for this group.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of psychotherapies for adults with TRD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (until May 2016), along with CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO via OVID (until 16 May 2017). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. There were no date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 to 74 years diagnosed with unipolar depression that had not responded to minimum four weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. We excluded studies of drug intolerance. Acceptable diagnoses of unipolar depression were based onthe Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) or earlier versions, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, Feighner criteria, or Research Diagnostic Criteria. We included the following comparisons.1. Any psychological therapy versus antidepressant treatment alone, or another psychological therapy.2. Any psychological therapy given in addition to antidepressant medication versus antidepressant treatment alone, or a psychological therapy alone.Primary outcomes required were change in depressive symptoms and number of dropouts from study or treatment (as a measure of acceptability).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data, assessed risk of bias in duplicate, and resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation with a third person. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses when appropriate. We summarised continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), and dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RRs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials (n = 698; most participants were women approximately 40 years of age). All studies evaluated psychotherapy plus usual care (with antidepressants) versus usual care (with antidepressants). Three studies addressed the addition of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) to usual care (n = 522), and one each evaluated intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy (ISTDP) (n = 60), interpersonal therapy (IPT) (n = 34), or group dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT) (n = 19) as the intervention. Most studies were small (except one trial of CBT was large), and all studies were at high risk of detection bias for the main outcome of self-reported depressive symptoms.A random-effects meta-analysis of five trials (n = 575) showed that psychotherapy given in addition to usual care (vs usual care alone) produced improvement in self-reported depressive symptoms (MD -4.07 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.07 to -1.07 on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scale) over the short term (up to six months). Effects were similar when data from all six studies were combined for self-reported depressive symptoms (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.14; n = 635). The quality of this evidence was moderate. Similar moderate-quality evidence of benefit was seen on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Scale (PHQ-9) from two studies (MD -4.66, 95% CI 8.72 to -0.59; n = 482) and on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) from four studies (MD -3.28, 95% CI -5.71 to -0.85; n = 193).High-quality evidence shows no differential dropout (a measure of acceptability) between intervention and comparator groups over the short term (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.24; six studies; n = 698).Moderate-quality evidence for remission from six studies (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.52; n = 635) and low-quality evidence for response from four studies (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.7; n = 556) indicate that psychotherapy was beneficial as an adjunct to usual care over the short term.With the addition of CBT, low-quality evidence suggests lower depression scores on the BDI scale over the medium term (12 months) (RR -3.40, 95% CI -7.21 to 0.40; two studies; n = 475) and over the long term (46 months) (RR -1.90, 95% CI -3.22 to -0.58; one study; n = 248). Moderate-quality evidence for adjunctive CBT suggests no difference in acceptability (dropout) over the medium term (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.47; two studies; n = 549) and lower dropout over long term (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97; one study; n = 248).Two studies reported serious adverse events (one suicide, two hospitalisations, and two exacerbations of depression) in 4.2% of the total sample, which occurred only in the usual care group (no events in the intervention group).An economic analysis (conducted as part of an included study) from the UK healthcare perspective (National Health Service (NHS)) revealed that adjunctive CBT was cost-effective over nearly four years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence shows that psychotherapy added to usual care (with antidepressants) is beneficial for depressive symptoms and for response and remission rates over the short term for patients with TRD. Medium- and long-term effects seem similarly beneficial, although most evidence was derived from a single large trial. Psychotherapy added to usual care seems as acceptable as usual care alone.Further evidence is needed on the effectiveness of different types of psychotherapies for patients with TRD. No evidence currently shows whether switching to a psychotherapy is more beneficial for this patient group than continuing an antidepressant medication regimen. Addressing this evidence gap is an important goal for researchers.