Cognitive behavioural therapy and third-wave approaches for anxiety and related disorders in older people.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the most researched psychological therapy for anxiety disorders in adults, and known to be effective in this population. However, it remains unclear whether these results apply to older adults, as most studies include participants between 18 and 55 years of age. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date synthesis of the available evidence on CBT and third wave approaches for older adults with anxiety and related disorders. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CT, BT, CBT and third-wave CBT interventions) on severity of anxiety symptoms compared with minimal management (not providing therapy) for anxiety and related disorders in older adults, aged 55 years or over. To assess the effects of CBT and related therapies on severity of anxiety symptoms compared with other psychological therapies for anxiety and related disorders in older adults, aged 55 years or over. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled studies Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and Ovid PsycINFO to 21 July 2022. These searches were updated on 2 February 2024. We also searched the international studies registries, including Clinicalstudies.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), to identify additional ongoing and unpublished studies. These sources were manually searched for studies up to 12 February 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in older adults (≥ 55 years) with an anxiety disorder, or a related disorder, including obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), that compared CBT to either minimal management or an active (non-CBT) psychological therapy. Eligible studies had to have an anxiety-related outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several authors independently screened all titles identified by the searches. All full texts were screened for eligibility according to our prespecified selection criteria. Data were extracted and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for RCTs. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes with quantitative data from more than one study. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 RCTs on 1234 older people allocated to either CBT or control conditions. Ten studies focused on generalised anxiety disorder; others mostly included a mix of clinical diagnoses. Nineteen studies focused on the comparison between CBT and minimal management. Key issues relating to risk of bias were lack of blinding of participants and personnel, and participants dropping out of studies, potentially due to treatment preference and allocation. CBT may result in a small-to-moderate reduction of anxiety post-treatment (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.36, low-certainty evidence). However, compared to this benefit with CBT immediately after treatment, at three to six months post-treatment, there was little to no difference between CBT and minimal management (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.01, low-certainty evidence). CBT may have little or no effect on clinical recovery/ improvement post-treatment compared to minimal management, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.03, very low-certainty evidence). Results indicate that five people would need to receive treatment for one additional person to benefit (NNTB = 5). Compared to minimal management, CBT may result in a reduction of comorbid depression symptoms post-treatment (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.40, low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in dropout rates post-treatment, although the certainty of the evidence was low (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.78). Two studies reported adverse events, both of which related to medication in the control groups (very low-certainty evidence, no quantitative estimate). Only two studies compared CBT to other psychological therapies, both of which only included participants with post-traumatic stress disorder. Low-certainty evidence showed no difference in anxiety severity post-treatment and at four to six months post-treatment, symptoms of depression post-treatment, and dropout rates post-treatment. Other outcomes and time points are reported in the results section of the manuscript. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CBT may be more effective than minimal management in reducing anxiety and symptoms of worry and depression post-treatment in older adults with anxiety disorders. The evidence is less certain longer-term and for other outcomes including clinical recovery/improvement. There is not enough evidence to determine whether CBT is more effective than alternative psychological therapies for anxiety in older adults.

Early pharmacological interventions for prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in individuals experiencing acute traumatic stress symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Acute traumatic stress symptoms may develop in people who have been exposed to a traumatic event. Although they are usually self-limiting in time, some people develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a severe and debilitating condition. Pharmacological interventions have been proposed for acute symptoms to act as an indicated prevention measure for PTSD development. As many individuals will spontaneously remit, these interventions should balance efficacy and tolerability. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of early pharmacological interventions for prevention of PTSD in adults experiencing acute traumatic stress symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. The search was last updated on 23 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials on adults exposed to any kind of traumatic event and presenting acute traumatic stress symptoms, without restriction on their severity. We considered comparisons of any medication with placebo, or with another medication. We excluded trials that investigated medications as an augmentation to psychotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Using a random-effects model, we analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) and calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH). We analysed continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD). Our primary outcomes were PTSD severity and dropouts due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included PTSD rate, functional disability and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies that considered four interventions (escitalopram, hydrocortisone, intranasal oxytocin, temazepam) and involved a total of 779 participants. The largest trial contributed 353 participants and the next largest, 120 and 118 participants respectively. The trials enrolled participants admitted to trauma centres or emergency departments. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally low except for attrition rate, which we rated as high-risk. We could meta-analyse data for two comparisons: escitalopram versus placebo (but limited to secondary outcomes) and hydrocortisone versus placebo. One study compared escitalopram to placebo at our primary time point of three months after the traumatic event. There was inconclusive evidence of any difference in terms of PTSD severity (mean difference (MD) on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS, score range 0 to 136) -11.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.56 to 1.86; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence), dropouts due to adverse events (no participant left the study early due to adverse events; 1 study, 31 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and PTSD rates (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.03 to 13.08; NNTB 37, 95% CI NNTB 15 to NNTH 1; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not assess functional disability or quality of life. Three studies compared hydrocortisone to placebo at our primary time point of three months after the traumatic event. We found inconclusive evidence on whether hydrocortisone was more effective in reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms compared to placebo (MD on CAPS -7.53, 95% CI -25.20 to 10.13; I2 = 85%; 3 studies, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduced the risk of developing PTSD (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.38; NNTB 14, 95% CI NNTB 8 to NNTH 5; I2 = 36%; 3 studies, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Evidence on the risk of dropping out due to adverse events is inconclusive (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 75.43; 2 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether hydrocortisone might improve quality of life (MD on the SF-36 (score range 0 to 136, higher is better) 19.70, 95% CI -1.10 to 40.50; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study assessed functional disability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides uncertain evidence regarding the use of escitalopram, hydrocortisone, intranasal oxytocin and temazepam for people with acute stress symptoms. It is therefore unclear whether these pharmacological interventions exert a positive or negative effect in this population. It is important to note that acute traumatic stress symptoms are often limited in time, and that the lack of data prevents the careful assessment of expected benefits against side effects that is therefore required. To yield stronger conclusions regarding both positive and negative outcomes, larger sample sizes are required. A common operational framework of criteria for inclusion and baseline assessment might help in better understanding who, if anyone, benefits from an intervention. As symptom severity alone does not provide the full picture of the impact of exposure to trauma, assessment of quality of life and functional impairment would provide a more comprehensive picture of the effects of the interventions. The assessment and reporting of side effects may facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of tolerability.