Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Adjunctive Pharmacotherapies for Acute Bipolar Depression: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Challenges in the Treatment of Psychotic Bipolar Depression

BACKGROUND

Psychotic bipolar depression (PBD) is a prevalent yet understudied psychiatric illness, and there are no specific guidelines or Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for its treatment. Recent studies suggest that some antipsychotics and mood stabilizers may be effective in managing bipolar depression; however, their effectiveness for PBD remains unclear. Given the urgent need for more focused research for managing PBD, we conducted a literature review to summarize the existing literature on PBD.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic literature search from the 1960s to 2023, utilizing PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google, and selected studies based on their relevance to PBD.

FINDINGS

PBD is a complex disorder, with 50%-75% of patients with bipolar disorder exhibiting psychotic features. This likelihood increases among those with a history of psychotic mania. Treatment guidelines often recommend a combination of mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, or electroconvulsive therapy, but they do not specify a first-line treatment. PBD symptoms can be masked by mixed high mood and energy feelings, potentially delaying diagnosis and treatment while increasing suicide risk. Limited research has evaluated outcomes of various treatments for PBD, and despite the lack of evidence for superior efficacy, in clinical practice, antipsychotics are frequently prescribed. Notably, combining an antipsychotic with selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors or tricyclic antidepressants may be effective, but including a mood stabilizer is necessary.

CONCLUSION

PBD poses a significant challenge in mental health due to its severity and the lack of consensus on optimal treatment approaches. There is a critical need for more dedicated clinical trials and research to answer key questions about the effective treatment of acute PBD, ideal follow-up care, traits of responders to different therapies, and decision models for subsequent treatments.

Patient-reported outcomes on sleep quality and circadian rhythm during treatment with intravenous ketamine for treatment-resistant depression

Background

Intravenous (IV) ketamine is a rapid acting antidepressant used primarily for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). It has been suggested that IV ketamine's rapid antidepressant effects may be partially mediated via improved sleep and changes to the circadian rhythm.

Objectives

This study explores IV ketamine's association with changes in patient-reported sleep quality and circadian rhythm in an adult population with TRD.

Methods

Adult patients (18-64 years) with TRD scheduled for IV ketamine treatment were recruited to complete patient rated outcomes measures on sleep quality using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and circadian rhythm using the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ). Over a 4-week course of eight ketamine infusions, reports were obtained at baseline (T0), prior to second treatment (T1), prior to fifth treatment (T2), and 1 week after eighth treatment (T3).

Results

Forty participants with TRD (mean age = 42.8, 45% male) were enrolled. Twenty-nine (72.5%) had complete follow-up data. Paired t tests revealed statistically significant improvements at the end of treatment in sleep quality (PSQI) (p = 0.003) and depressive symptoms (Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale-Depression, p < 0.001) while circadian rhythm (MEQ) shifted earlier (p = 0.007). The PSQI subscale components of sleep duration (p = 0.008) and daytime dysfunction (p = 0.001) also improved. In an exploratory post hoc analysis, ketamine's impact on sleep quality was more prominent in patients with mixed features, while its chronobiotic effect was prominent in those without mixed features.

Conclusion

IV ketamine may improve sleep quality and advance circadian rhythm in individuals with TRD. Effects may differ in individuals with mixed features of depression as compared to those without. Since this was a small uncontrolled study, future research is warranted.

Efficacy and Safety of Antidiabetic Agents for Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of antidiabetic agents in the treatment of major depressive disorder and bipolar depression.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antidiabetic agents in major depressive disorder or bipolar depression were searched in three electronic databases and three clinical trial registry websites from their inception up to October 2023. The differences in changes in the depression rating scale scores from baseline to endpoint or pre-defined sessions, response rate, remission rate, rate of side effects and dropout rate between antidiabetic agents and placebo were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Six RCTs involving 399 participants were included in the final meta-analysis, which did not find that antidiabetics outperformed the placebo in reducing depressive symptoms. The standardized mean difference (SMD) in the depression scores from baseline to endpoint was 0.25 (95% CI -0.1, 0.61). However, a subgroup analysis found a significant difference between antidiabetics and placebos in reducing depressive symptoms in Middle Eastern populations, with an SMD of 0.89 (95% CI 0.44, 1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis does not support the efficacy of antidiabetics being superior to the placebo in the treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression. However, a subgroup analysis indicates that patients from the Middle East may benefit from adding an antidiabetic medication to their ongoing medication(s) for their depression. Larger studies with good-quality study designs are warranted.

Efficacy and safety of ketamine and esketamine for unipolar and bipolar depression: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis

Background

Unipolar and bipolar depression present treatment challenges, with patients sometimes showing limited or no response to standard medications. Ketamine and its enantiomer, esketamine, offer promising alternative treatments that can quickly relieve suicidal thoughts. This Overview of Reviews (OoR) analyzed and synthesized systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analysis on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving ketamine in various formulations (intravenous, intramuscular, intranasal, subcutaneous) for patients with unipolar or bipolar depression. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ketamine and esketamine in treating major depressive episodes across various forms, including unipolar, bipolar, treatment-resistant, and non-resistant depression, in patient populations with and without suicidal ideation, aiming to comprehensively assess their therapeutic potential and safety profile.

Methods

Following PRIOR guidelines, this OoR's protocol was registered on Implasy (ID:202150049). Searches in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos focused on English-language meta-analyses of RCTs of ketamine or esketamine, as monotherapy or add-on, evaluating outcomes like suicide risk, depressive symptoms, relapse, response rates, and side effects. We included studies involving both suicidal and non-suicidal patients; all routes and formulations of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, intranasal) were considered, as well as all available comparisons with control interventions. We excluded meta-analysis in which the intervention was used as anesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy or with a randomized ascending dose design. The selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of studies were carried out by pairs of reviewers in a blinded manner. Data on efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability were extracted.

Results

Our analysis included 26 SRs and 44 RCTs, with 3,316 subjects. The intervention is effective and well-tolerated, although the quality of the included SRs and original studies is poor, resulting in low certainty of evidence.

Limitations

This study is limited by poor-quality SRs and original studies, resulting in low certainty of the evidence. Additionally, insufficient available data prevents differentiation between the effects of ketamine and esketamine in unipolar and bipolar depression.

Conclusion

While ketamine and esketamine show promising therapeutic potential, the current evidence suffers from low study quality. Enhanced methodological rigor in future research will allow for a more informed application of these interventions within the treatment guidelines for unipolar and bipolar depression.

Systematic review registration

[https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-5-0049/], identifier (INPLASY202150049).

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar depression in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bipolar depression constitutes a major public health problem due to its substantial burden of disease. Although pharmacological interventions are available, guidelines required updated evidence synthesis to improve their current recommendations. In order to inform evidence-based prescribing, we investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar depression.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions with each other or placebo in adults with acute bipolar depression (type I, type II, or not otherwise specified), excluding those with substance misuse, unipolar depression, or schizophrenia, in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, and LILACS from database inception up to April 13, 2023. Criteria for eligibility were a duration of 2-16 weeks with masked outcome assessments, and we included combination, add-on design, and monotherapy studies. The co-primary outcomes were depressive symptoms, examined with standardised mean differences (SMDs), and manic switch, examined with odds ratios (ORs). We also investigated dropouts due to any reason, inefficacy, adverse events, and important side-effects as secondary outcomes. The confidence in the evidence was evaluated using Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020171726.

RESULTS

We analysed data from 101 randomised controlled trials covering 20 081 participants, 8063 men (41·7%) and 11 263 women (58·3%; sex not available in four studies), mean age 41·0 years (range of means 28·7-53·6 years), and 68 medications and placebo. Ethnicity data were not available. With moderate confidence in the evidence, olanzapine plus fluoxetine, quetiapine, olanzapine, lurasidone, lumateperone, cariprazine, and lamotrigine were more efficacious than placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, with SMDs ranging from 0·41 (95% CI 0·19-0·64) for olanzapine plus fluoxetine to 0·16 (0·03-0·29) for lamotrigine. Several other drugs might also be efficacious, but the confidence in the evidence was very low to low. Antidepressants as a class seem to be efficacious, but had a higher risk for manic switch compared to antipsychotics. Medications differed in their side-effect profiles.

INTERPRETATION

This is, to our knowledge, the largest network meta-analysis of pharmacotherapy for bipolar depression to date. Olanzapine plus fluoxetine, quetiapine, olanzapine, lurasidone, lumateperone, cariprazine, and lamotrigine were found to be more efficacious than placebo in adults with acute bipolar depression, with good confidence in the evidence, and to differ in their side-effect profiles. These findings can inform evidence-based care and the development of treatment guidelines internationally.

FUNDING

None.

Traditional Chinese Medicine Body Constitutions as Predictors for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Traditional Chinese medicine body constitution (TCMBC) reflects a person's vulnerability to diseases. Thus, identifying body constitutions prone to depression can help prevent and treat depression. The review aimed to assess and summarize the existing evidence that explores the relationship between TCMBC and depression. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, MEDLINE, PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang, SinoMed, Embase, VIP, CINAHL, and CMJ were searched from inception to April 2021. Observational studies assessing the association between TCMBC and depression were selected. The quality of the included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Eighteen studies were included in the systematic review and thirteen in the meta-analysis. The pooled odd ratios of developing depression for Qi-stagnation, Qi-deficiency, Yang-deficiency, Yin-deficiency, and Balanced constitutions were 3.12 (95% CI, 1.80-5.40; I2 = 94%), 2.15 (95% CI, 1.54-3.01; I2 = 89%), 1.89 (95% CI, 0.71-5.03; I2 = 81%), 1.41 (95% CI, 0.91-2.20; I2 = 57%), and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.40-0.90; I2 = 94%), respectively. The findings suggest that the evaluation of a person's TCMBC could be useful the in prevention and treatment of depression. However, more case-control and cohort studies are required to further confirm the association between TCMBC and depression.

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapies for alcohol withdrawal: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There have been few head-to-head clinical trials of pharmacotherapies for alcohol withdrawal (AW). We, therefore, aimed to evaluate the comparative performance of pharmacotherapies for AW.

METHODS

Six databases were searched for randomized clinical trials through November 2021. Trials were included after a blinded review by two independent reviewers. Outcomes included incident seizures, delirium tremens, AW severity scores, adverse events, dropouts, dropouts from adverse events, length of hospital stay, use of additional medications, total benzodiazepine requirements, and death. Effect sizes were pooled using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis models to generate summary ORs and Cohen's d standardized mean differences (SMDs).

RESULTS

Across the 149 trials, there were 10 692 participants (76% male, median 43.5 years old). AW severity spanned mild (n = 32), moderate (n = 51), and severe (n = 66). Fixed-schedule chlormethiazole (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.65), fixed-schedule diazepam (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.59), fixed-schedule lorazepam (OR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.45), fixed-schedule chlordiazepoxide (OR = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.08-0.53), and divalproex (OR = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.86) were superior to placebo at reducing incident AW seizures. However, only fixed-schedule diazepam (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.76) reduced incident delirium tremens. Oxcarbazepine (d = -3.69; 95% CI, -6.21 to -1.17), carbamazepine (d = -2.76; 95% CI, -4.13 to -1.40), fixed-schedule oxazepam (d = -2.55; 95% CI, -4.26 to -0.83), and γ-hydroxybutyrate (d = -1.80; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.26) improved endpoint Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised scores over placebo. Promazine and carbamazepine were the only agents significantly associated with greater dropouts because of adverse events. The quality of evidence was downgraded because of the substantial risk of bias, heterogeneity, inconsistency, and imprecision.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some pharmacotherapeutic modalities, particularly benzodiazepines, appear to be safe and efficacious for reducing some measures of alcohol withdrawal, methodological issues and a high risk of bias prevent a consistent estimate of their comparative performance.

Appetite-regulating hormones in bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Impaired hormonal regulation of appetite may contribute to higher cardiovascular risk in bipolar disorder (BD). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating peripheral blood levels of appetite-regulating hormones in BD and controls. A total of 32 studies were included. Leptin and insulin levels were significantly elevated in patients with BD during euthymia, but not in other mood states. Greater differences in the number of male participants between patients with BD and healthy controls were associated with higher effect size estimates for the levels of insulin. There were significant positive correlations of effect size estimates for the levels of adiponectin with the percentage of individuals with type I BD and duration of BD. Our findings point to the mechanisms underlying high rates of cardiometabolic comorbidities in BD. Moreover, they suggest that investigating hormonal regulation of appetite might help to understand differences in the neurobiology of BD types.

Efficacy and safety of racemic ketamine and esketamine for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Racemic ketamine and esketamine have demonstrated rapid antidepressant effects. We aimed to review the efficacy and safety of racemic and esketamine for depression.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a PRISMA-guided review for relevant randomized controlled trials of racemic or esketamine for unipolar or bipolar major depression from database inception through 2021. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses using pooled rate ratios (RRs) and Cohen's standardized mean differences (d) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

We found 36 studies (2903 participants, 57% female, 45.1 +/- 7.0 years). Nine trials used esketamine, while the rest used racemic ketamine. The overall study quality was high. Treatment with any form of ketamine was associated with improved response (RR=2.14; 95% CI, 1.72-2.66; I2=65%), remission (RR=1.64; 95% CI, 1.33-2.02; I2=39%), and depression severity (d=-0.63; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.45; I2=78%) against placebo. Overall, there was no association between treatment with any form of ketamine and retention in treatment (RR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01; I2<1%), dropouts due to adverse events (RR=1.56; 95% CI, 1.00-2.45; I2<1%), or the overall number of adverse events reported per participant (OR=2.14; 95% CI, 0.82-5.60; I2=62%) against placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine and esketamine are effective, safe, and acceptable treatments for individuals living with depression.

Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Antipsychotics for Juvenile Psychotic Disorders: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Psychotic disorders produce important morbidity and disability in children and adolescents. There have been few relevant treatment trials, encouraging assessment of research aimed at testing efficacy and safety of antipsychotics for juveniles. We aimed to compare the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of antipsychotics to treat psychotic disorders among children and adolescents.

METHODS

Four major bibliographic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE) were searched for clinical trials of antipsychotics in children or adolescents, from database inception to May 2021. We searched for clinical trials comparing antipsychotics with control conditions for juvenile psychosis based on blinded review by 2 independent investigators (C.S.Y. and M.L.). We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and applied the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to appraise study quality. One reviewer (A.B.) performed data abstraction which was confirmed by 2 independent, blinded reviewers (C.S.Y. and M.L.). Primary outcomes were scores rating psychosis symptoms and dichotomized retention in treatment protocols versus dropouts because of adverse events. Effect sizes were pooled using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis modeling to generate summary rate ratios (RRs) and Cohen d standardized mean differences.

RESULTS

Systematic searching generated 1330 unique records. Of these, short-term (n = 15, for 6 [3-12] weeks) and long-term (n = 10, for 12 [6-60] months) treatment trials involved 2208 (39.2% females; median age, 15.3 years), and 1366 subjects (35.0% females; median age, 15.6 years), respectively. Short-term reduction of psychosis scores ranked clozapine (d = -1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.97 to -0.73]), molindone (-1.22; 95% CI, -1.68 to -0.75), olanzapine (-1.12; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.81), and risperidone (-0.93; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.63) as the most effective agents. In longer-term treatment, only lurasidone was effective. Clozapine (RR, 12.8) and haloperidol (RR, 5.15) led to more all-cause and adverse event-related dropouts. There were few trials/drug (1 each for aripiprazole, asenapine, lurasidone, molindone, paliperidone, and ziprasidone, short term; aripiprazole, clozapine, haloperidol, lurasidone, and molindone, long-term). Heterogeneity and inconsistency were high, especially in long-term trials, without evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Some antipsychotics were effective and tolerated short term, but longer-term evidence was very limited. The overall paucity of trials and of adequate controls indicates that more well-designed randomized controlled trials are required for adequate assessment of antipsychotic drug treatment for juveniles.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021232937.

Repurposed drugs as adjunctive treatments for mania and bipolar depression: A meta-review and critical appraisal of meta-analyses of randomized placebo-controlled trials

Several drugs previously tested in clinical trials and approved for different indications have been repurposed for bipolar disorder. We carried out a systematic meta-review of meta-analyses of randomized placebo-controlled trials investigating repurposed drugs as adjunctive treatments for mania and bipolar depression. We performed a critical appraisal using 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' Version 2 (AMSTAR 2). We synthesized results on efficacy, tolerability, and safety, assessing evidence quality according to the 'Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations' (GRADE) approach. Our systematic search identified nine eligible studies investigating 12 drugs, four for mania and eight for bipolar depression. The quality of reporting was heterogeneous according to AMSTAR 2. In mania, allopurinol (for symptoms reduction and remission at 4-8 weeks) and tamoxifen (for response and symptoms reduction at 4-6 weeks) showed higher efficacy than placebo, with low and very low quality of evidence, respectively. Concerning bipolar depression, modafinil/armodafinil (for response, remission, and symptoms reduction at 6-8 weeks) and pramipexole (for response and symptoms reduction at 6 weeks) were superior to placebo, despite the low quality of evidence. Results on the efficacy of celecoxib and N-acetylcysteine were of low quality and limited to certain outcomes. Overall, the lack of evidence of high and moderate quality does not allow us to draw firm conclusions on the clinical utility of repurposed drugs as adjunctive treatments for mania and bipolar depression, highlighting the need for additional research.

Comparative efficacy and safety of stimulant-type medications for depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Globally, depression impacts nearly 300 million people, and roughly half do not achieve remission with standard first-line therapies. For such individuals, augmentation strategies are often helpful at reducing the severity of depression. While there are many potential adjunctive medication choices, psychostimulants are among the more controversial options.

OBJECTIVES

The present review sought to clarify the comparative efficacy and safety of different stimulant-like medications to treat depression.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) using psychostimulant medications to treat adults with depression. Outcomes were pooled using rate ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes (e.g., response, adverse events) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes (e.g., change in depression scores).

RESULTS

We identified 37 eligible studies (ranging from 1958 to 2016). We assessed nine psychostimulants: methylphenidate (n=14), dextroamphetamine (n=9), modafinil (n=6), lisdexamphetamine (n=3), methylamphetamine (n=3), pemoline (n=2), atomoxetine (n=1), desipramine (n=1), and imipramine (n=1). Overall, psychostimulants demonstrated efficacy for depression, reduced fatigue and sleepiness, and appeared well-tolerated. However, there was inconsistent evidence across particular psychostimulants. For example, the only psychostimulant which demonstrated efficacy for depression-in terms of both symptom severity and response rates-was methylphenidate.

CONCLUSIONS

While our review suggests that some psychostimulants-particularly methylphenidate-appear well-tolerated and demonstrate some efficacy for depression, as well as fatigue and sleepiness, the strength of evidence in our estimates was low to very low for most agents given the small sample sizes, few RCTs, and imprecision in most estimates. A lack of consistent evidence precludes a definitive hierarchy of treatments and points to a need for additional, high-quality RCTs.

Ketamine for Bipolar Depression: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Ketamine appears to have a therapeutic role in certain mental disorders, most notably unipolar major depressive disorder. However, its efficacy in bipolar depression is less clear. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of ketamine for bipolar depression.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of experimental studies using ketamine for the treatment of bipolar depression. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register for relevant studies published since each database's inception. We synthesized evidence regarding efficacy (improvement in depression rating scores) and tolerability (adverse events, dissociation, dropouts) across studies.

RESULTS

We identified 6 studies, with 135 participants (53% female; 44.7 years; standard deviation, 11.7 years). All studies used 0.5 mg/kg of add-on intravenous racemic ketamine, with the number of doses ranging from 1 to 6; all participants continued a mood-stabilizing agent. The overall proportion achieving a response (defined as those having a reduction in their baseline depression severity of at least 50%) was 61% for those receiving ketamine and 5% for those receiving a placebo. The overall response rates varied from 52% to 80% across studies. Ketamine was reasonably well tolerated; however, 2 participants (1 receiving ketamine and 1 receiving placebo) developed manic symptoms. Some participants developed significant dissociative symptoms at the 40-minute mark following ketamine infusion in 2 trials.

CONCLUSIONS

There is some preliminary evidence supporting use of intravenous racemic ketamine to treat adults with bipolar depression. There is a need for additional studies exploring longer-term outcomes and alterative formulations of ketamine.

Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of Psychotherapies for Self-harm and Suicidal Behavior Among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Self-harm and suicidal behavior are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality among children and adolescents. The comparative performance of psychotherapies for suicidality is unclear because few head-to-head clinical trials have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of psychotherapies for the treatment of self-harm and suicidality among children and adolescents.

DATA SOURCES

Four major bibliographic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase) were searched for clinical trials comparing psychotherapy with control conditions from inception to September 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials comparing psychotherapies for suicidality and/or self-harm with control conditions among children and adolescents were included after a blinded review by 3 independent reviewers (A.B., M.P., and J.W.).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed for data abstraction, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate study-level risk of bias. Data abstraction was performed by 1 reviewer (A.B.) and confirmed by 2 independent blinded reviewers (J.W. and M.P.). Data were analyzed from October 15, 2020, to February 15, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were dichotomized self-harm and retention in treatment. The secondary outcomes were dichotomized all-cause treatment discontinuation and scores on instruments measuring suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms. Effect sizes were pooled using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis models to generate summary odds ratios (ORs) and Cohen d standardized mean differences (SMDs). Negative Cohen d SMDs or ORs less than 1 indicated that the treatment reduced the parameter of interest relative to the control condition (eg, signifying a beneficial association with suicidal ideation).

RESULTS

The systematic search generated 1272 unique records. Of those, 44 randomized clinical trials (5406 total participants; 4109 female participants [76.0%]) from 49 articles were selected (5 follow-up studies were merged with their primary clinical trials to avoid publication bias). The selected clinical trials spanned January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2020. The median duration of treatment was 3 months (range, 0.25-12.00 months), and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range, 1-36 months). None of the investigated psychotherapies were associated with increases in study withdrawals or improvements in retention in treatment compared with treatment as usual. Dialectical behavioral therapies were associated with reductions in self-harm (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64) and suicidal ideation (Cohen d SMD, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.23) at the end of treatment, while mentalization-based therapies were associated with decreases in self-harm (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.97) and suicidal ideation (Cohen d SMD, -1.22; 95% CI, -2.18 to -0.26) at the end of follow-up. The quality of evidence was downgraded because of high risk of bias overall, heterogeneity, publication bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although some psychotherapeutic modalities appear to be acceptable and efficacious for reducing self-harm and suicidality among children and adolescents, methodological issues and high risk of bias prevent a consistent estimate of their comparative performance.