Towards Outcome-Driven Patient Subgroups: A Machine Learning Analysis Across Six Depression Treatment Studies.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a heterogeneous condition; multiple underlying neurobiological and behavioral substrates are associated with treatment response variability. Understanding the sources of this variability and predicting outcomes has been elusive. Machine learning (ML) shows promise in predicting treatment response in MDD, but its application is limited by challenges to the clinical interpretability of ML models, and clinicians often lack confidence in model results. In order to improve the interpretability of ML models in clinical practice, our goal was to demonstrate the derivation of treatment-relevant patient profiles comprised of clinical and demographic information using a novel ML approach. METHODS: We analyzed data from six clinical trials of pharmacological treatment for depression (total n = 5438) using the Differential Prototypes Neural Network (DPNN), a ML model that derives patient prototypes which can be used to derive treatment-relevant patient clusters while learning to generate probabilities for differential treatment response. A model classifying remission and outputting individual remission probabilities for five first-line monotherapies and three combination treatments was trained using clinical and demographic data. Prototypes were evaluated for interpretability by assessing differences in feature distributions (e.g. age, sex, symptom severity) and treatment-specific outcomes. RESULTS: A 3-prototype model achieved an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.66 and an expected absolute improvement in remission rate for those receiving the best predicted treatment of 6.5% (relative improvement of 15.6%) compared to the population remission rate. We identified three treatment-relevant patient clusters. Cluster A patients tended to be younger, to have increased levels of fatigue, and more severe symptoms. Cluster B patients tended to be older, female, have less severe symptoms, and the highest remission rates. Cluster C patients had more severe symptoms, lower remission rates, more psychomotor agitation, more intense suicidal ideation, and more somatic genital symptoms. CONCLUSION: It is possible to produce novel treatment-relevant patient profiles using ML models; doing so may improve interpretability of ML models and the quality of precision medicine treatments for MDD.

Robust inference methods for meta-analysis involving influential outlying studies.

Meta-analysis is an essential tool to comprehensively synthesize and quantitatively evaluate results of multiple clinical studies in evidence-based medicine. In many meta-analyses, the characteristics of some studies might markedly differ from those of the others, and these outlying studies can generate biases and potentially yield misleading results. In this article, we provide effective robust statistical inference methods using generalized likelihoods based on the density power divergence. The robust inference methods are designed to adjust the influences of outliers through the use of modified estimating equations based on a robust criterion, even when multiple and serious influential outliers are present. We provide the robust estimators, statistical tests, and confidence intervals via the generalized likelihoods for the fixed-effect and random-effects models of meta-analysis. We also assess the contribution rates of individual studies to the robust overall estimators that indicate how the influences of outlying studies are adjusted. Through simulations and applications to two recently published systematic reviews, we demonstrate that the overall conclusions and interpretations of meta-analyses can be markedly changed if the robust inference methods are applied and that only the conventional inference methods might produce misleading evidence. These methods would be recommended to be used at least as a sensitivity analysis method in the practice of meta-analysis. We have also developed an R package, robustmeta, that implements the robust inference methods.

Evaluating the substance use disorder treatment gap in the United States, 2016-2019: A population health observational study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Only 10% of Americans with substance use disorders (SUDs) receive treatment with insufficient treatment access and screening practices proposed and potential contributing factors. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study used National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data to assess individuals with SUDs receiving treatment between 2016 and 2019 (survey n = 12,111; weighted n = 12,394,214). Demographic, access, and screening characteristics were investigated as predictors of treatment receipt using time-series logistic regression analyses to test trends and assessed treatment receipt odds, controlling for demographic and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: For those with past-year SUDs, 13.0% reported receiving past-year SUD treatment (survey n = 1605; weighted n = 1,612,154). The SUD treatment receipt rate remained statistically stable from 2016 to 2019, with a nonsignificant treatment receipt trend declining from 14% to 12%. Treatment changes were notable among Native Americans (+53.80%), Pacific Islanders (+94.10%), multiracial (-59.96%), ages 65+ (-70.18%), and ages 12-17 (-50.70%). In the regression model, race, sex, age, insurance status, and receiving mental health treatment were associated with SUD treatment receipt. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The treatment gap remains substantial and stable. Annually, about 87% of Americans with SUDs are not receiving the treatment they need. Asian Americans were less likely and those attending general mental health services were more likely to receive treatment. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: We present an updated SUD treatment gap evaluation, and identify access and screening characteristics associated with SUD treatment receipt. Policymakers, clinicians, and researchers must continue improving access and identification of those in need of care.

Correction: Electronic Health Record-Nested Reminders for Serum Lithium Level Monitoring in Patients With Mood Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/40595.].

Utility of RAND/UCLA appropriateness method in validating multiple-choice questions on ECG.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the utility of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RAM) in validating expert consensus-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on electrocardiogram (ECG). METHODS: According to the RAM user's manual, nine panelists comprising various experts who routinely handle ECGs were asked to reach a consensus in three phases: a preparatory phase (round 0), an online test phase (round 1), and a face-to-face expert panel meeting (round 2). In round 0, the objectives and future timeline of the study were elucidated to the nine expert panelists with a summary of relevant literature. In round 1, 100 ECG questions prepared by two skilled cardiologists were answered, and the success rate was calculated by dividing the number of correct answers by 9. Furthermore, the questions were stratified into "Appropriate," "Discussion," or "Inappropriate" according to the median score and interquartile range (IQR) of appropriateness rating by nine panelists. In round 2, the validity of the 100 ECG questions was discussed in an expert panel meeting according to the results of round 1 and finally reassessed as "Appropriate," "Candidate," "Revision," and "Defer." RESULTS: In round 1 results, the average success rate of the nine experts was 0.89. Using the median score and IQR, 54 questions were classified as " Discussion." In the expert panel meeting in round 2, 23% of the original 100 questions was ultimately deemed inappropriate, although they had been prepared by two skilled cardiologists. Most of the 46 questions categorized as "Appropriate" using the median score and IQR in round 1 were considered "Appropriate" even after round 2 (44/46, 95.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the median score and IQR allowed for a more objective determination of question validity. The RAM may help select appropriate questions, contributing to the preparation of higher-quality tests.

Three types of university students with subthreshold depression characterized by distinctive cognitive behavioral skills.

Subthreshold depression impairs young people's quality of life and places them at greater risk of developing major depression. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based approach for addressing such depressive states. This study identified subtypes of university students with subthreshold depression and revealed discrete profiles of five CBT skills: self-monitoring, cognitive restructuring, behavioral activation, assertive communication, and problem solving. Using data from the Healthy Campus Trial (registration number: UMINCTR-000031307), a hierarchical clustering analysis categorized 1,080 students into three clusters: Reflective Low-skilled, Non-reflective High-skilled, and Non-reflective Low-skilled students. Non-reflective Low-skilled students were significantly more depressed than other students (p < .001). The severity of depression seemed to be related to the combination of self-monitoring skills and other CBT skills. Considering the high prevalence of poor self-monitoring skills in persons with autism, the most severe depression was observed in the significant association between Non-reflective Low-skilled students and autistic traits (p = .008). These findings suggest that subthreshold depression can be categorized into three subtypes based on CBT skill profiles. The assessment of autistic traits is also suggested when we provide CBT interventions for Non-reflective Low-skilled students.

Reimagining the journey to recovery: The COVID-19 pandemic and global mental health.

In this editorial, guest editors Vikram Patel, Daisy Fancourt, Lola Kola, and Toshi Furukawa discuss the contents of the special issue on the pandemic and global mental health, highlighting key themes and providing important context.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral and long-acting injectable antipsychotics for the maintenance treatment of adults with schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a common, severe, and usually chronic disorder. Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs can prevent relapse but also causes side-effects. We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotics as maintenance treatment for non-treatment resistant patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched, without language restrictions, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's specialised register between database inception and April 27, 2020, PubMed from April 1, 2020, to Jan 15, 2021, and the lists of included studies from related systematic reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; ≥12 weeks of follow-up) that recruited adult participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder with stable symptoms who were treated with antipsychotics (monotherapy; oral or long-acting injectable) or placebo. We excluded RCTs of participants with specific comorbidities or treatment resistance. In duplicate, two authors independently selected eligible RCTs and extracted aggregate data. The primary outcome was the number of participants who relapsed and was analysed by random-effects, Bayesian network meta-analyses. The study was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42016049022. FINDINGS: We identified 4157 references through our search, from which 501 references on 127 RCTs of 32 antipsychotics (comprising 18 152 participants) were included. 100 studies including 16 812 participants and 30 antipsychotics contributed to our network meta-analysis of the primary outcome. All antipsychotics had risk ratios (RRs) less than 1·00 when compared with placebo for relapse prevention and almost all had 95% credible intervals (CrIs) excluding no effect. RRs ranged from 0·20 (95% CrI 0·05-0·41) for paliperidone oral to 0·65 (0·16-1·14) for cariprazine oral (moderate-to-low confidence in estimates). Generally, we interpret that there was no clear evidence for the superiority of specific antipsychotics in terms of relapse prevention because most comparisons between antipsychotics included a probability of no difference. INTERPRETATION: As we found no clear differences between antipsychotics for relapse prevention, we conclude that the choice of antipsychotic for maintenance treatment should be guided mainly by their tolerability. FUNDING: The German Ministry of Education and Research and Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

CBT treatment delivery formats for panic disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Several in-person and remote delivery formats of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for panic disorder are available, but up-to-date and comprehensive evidence on their comparative efficacy and acceptability is lacking. Our aim was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of all CBT delivery formats to treat panic disorder. To answer our question we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL, from inception to 1st January 2022. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO. We found a total of 74 trials with 6699 participants. Evidence suggests that face-to-face group [standardised mean differences (s.m.d.) -0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.87 to -0.07; CINeMA = moderate], face-to-face individual (s.m.d. -0.43, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.15; CINeMA = Moderate), and guided self-help (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.07; CINeMA = low), are superior to treatment as usual in terms of efficacy, whilst unguided self-help is not (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.16; CINeMA = low). In terms of acceptability (i.e. all-cause discontinuation from the trial) CBT delivery formats did not differ significantly from each other. Our findings are clear in that there are no efficacy differences between CBT delivered as guided self-help, or in the face-to-face individual or group format in the treatment of panic disorder. No CBT delivery format provided high confidence in the evidence at the CINeMA evaluation.

Which psychotherapy is most effective and acceptable in the treatment of adults with a (sub)clinical borderline personality disorder? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

A broad range of psychotherapies have been proposed and evaluated in the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD), but the question which specific type of psychotherapy is most effective remains unanswered. In this study, two network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted investigating the comparative effectiveness of psychotherapies on (1) BPD severity and (2) suicidal behaviour (combined rate). Study drop-out was included as a secondary outcome. Six databases were searched until 21 January 2022, including RCTs on the efficacy of any psychotherapy in adults (⩾18 years) with a diagnosis of (sub)clinical BPD. Data were extracted using a predefined table format. PROSPERO ID:CRD42020175411. In our study, a total of 43 studies (N = 3273) were included. We found significant differences between several active comparisons in the treatment of (sub)clinical BPD, however, these findings were based on very few trials and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Some therapies were more efficacious compared to GT or TAU. Furthermore, some treatments more than halved the risk of attempted suicide and committed suicide (combined rate), reporting RRs around 0.5 or lower, however, these RRs were not statistically significantly better compared to other therapies or to TAU. Study drop-out significantly differed between some treatments. In conclusion, no single treatment seems to be the best choice to treat people with BPD compared to other treatments. Nevertheless, psychotherapies for BPD are perceived as first-line treatments, and should therefore be investigated further on their long-term effectiveness, preferably in head-to-head trials. DBT was the best connected treatment, providing solid evidence of its effectiveness.

Pharmacological treatments in panic disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines. OBJECTIVES: To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Control Measures on the Mental Health of the General Population : A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To what extent the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures influenced mental health in the general population is still unclear. PURPOSE: To assess the trajectory of mental health symptoms during the first year of the pandemic and examine dose-response relations with characteristics of the pandemic and its containment. DATA SOURCES: Relevant articles were identified from the living evidence database of the COVID-19 Open Access Project, which indexes COVID-19-related publications from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo. Preprint publications were not considered. STUDY SELECTION: Longitudinal studies that reported data on the general population's mental health using validated scales and that were published before 31 March 2021 were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: An international crowd of 109 trained reviewers screened references and extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, and symptom scores at each timepoint. Data were also included for the following country-specific variables: days since the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the stringency of governmental containment measures, and the cumulative numbers of cases and deaths. DATA SYNTHESIS: In a total of 43 studies (331 628 participants), changes in symptoms of psychological distress, sleep disturbances, and mental well-being varied substantially across studies. On average, depression and anxiety symptoms worsened in the first 2 months of the pandemic (standardized mean difference at 60 days, -0.39 [95% credible interval, -0.76 to -0.03]); thereafter, the trajectories were heterogeneous. There was a linear association of worsening depression and anxiety with increasing numbers of reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increasing stringency in governmental measures. Gender, age, country, deprivation, inequalities, risk of bias, and study design did not modify these associations. LIMITATIONS: The certainty of the evidence was low because of the high risk of bias in included studies and the large amount of heterogeneity. Stringency measures and surges in cases were strongly correlated and changed over time. The observed associations should not be interpreted as causal relationships. CONCLUSION: Although an initial increase in average symptoms of depression and anxiety and an association between higher numbers of reported cases and more stringent measures were found, changes in mental health symptoms varied substantially across studies after the first 2 months of the pandemic. This suggests that different populations responded differently to the psychological stress generated by the pandemic and its containment measures. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Swiss National Science Foundation. (PROSPERO: CRD42020180049).

Electronic Health Record-Nested Reminders for Serum Lithium Level Monitoring in Patients With Mood Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend regular serum lithium monitoring every 3 to 6 months. However, in the real world, only a minority of patients receive adequate monitoring. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine whether the use of the electronic health record (EHR)-nested reminder system for serum lithium monitoring can help achieve serum lithium concentrations within the therapeutic range for patients on lithium maintenance therapy. METHODS: We conducted an unblinded, single-center, EHR-nested, parallel-group, superiority randomized controlled trial comparing EHR-nested reminders with usual care in adult patients receiving lithium maintenance therapy for mood disorders. The primary outcome was the achievement of therapeutically appropriate serum lithium levels between 0.4 and 1.0 mEq/L at 18 months after enrollment. The key secondary outcomes are included as follows: the number of serum lithium level monitoring except for the first and final monitoring; exacerbation of the mood disorder during the study period, defined by hospitalization, increase in lithium dose, addition of antipsychotic drugs or mood stabilizers, or addition or increase of antidepressants; adherence defined by the proportion of days covered by lithium carbonate prescription during the study period. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were enrolled in this study. A total of 56 patients were assigned to the reminder group, and 55 patients were assigned to the usual care group. At the follow-up, 38 (69.1%) patients in the reminder group and 33 (60.0%) patients in the usual care group achieved the primary outcome (odds ratio 2.14, 95% CI 0.82-5.58, P=.12). The median number of serum lithium monitoring was 2 in the reminder group and 0 in the usual care group (rate ratio 3.62; 95% CI 2.47-5.29, P<.001). The exacerbation of mood disorders occurred in 17 (31.5%) patients in the reminder group and in 16 (34.8%) patients in the usual care group (odds ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.42-2.28, P=.95). CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence for an EHR-nested reminder to increase the achievement of therapeutic serum lithium concentrations. However, the number of monitoring increased with relatively simple and inexpensive intervention. The EHR-based reminders may be useful to improve quality of care for patients on lithium maintenance therapy, and they have potentials to be applied to other problems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000033633; https://tinyurl.com/5n7wtyav.

The effects of psychological treatments of depression in children and adolescents on response, reliable change, and deterioration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Meta-analyses show that psychotherapies are effective in the treatment of depression in children and adolescents. However, these effects are usually reported in terms of effect sizes. For patients and clinicians, it is important to know whether patients achieve a clinically significant improvement or deterioration. We conducted such a meta-analysis to examine response, clinically significant change, clinically significant deterioration and recovery as outcomes. We searched four bibliographic databases and included 40 randomised trials comparing psychotherapy for youth depression against control conditions. We used a validated method to estimate outcome rates, based on means, standard deviation and N at baseline and post-test. We also calculated numbers-need-to- treat (NNT). The overall response rate in psychotherapies at 2 (±1) months after baseline was 39% (95% CI: 34-45) and 24% (95% CI: 0.19-28) in control conditions (NNT: 6.2). The difference between therapy and control was still significant at 6-12 months after baseline (NNT=7.8). Clinically significant improvement was found in 54% of youth in therapy, compared with 32% in control groups (NNT=5.3); clinically significant deterioration was 6% in therapy, 13% in controls (NNT=5.1); recovery was 58% in therapy, 36% in controls (NNT=3.3). Smaller effects were found in studies with low risk of bias. Psychotherapies for depression in youth are effective compared to control conditions, but more than 60% of youth receiving therapy do not respond. More effective treatments and treatment strategies are clearly needed. Trial registration https://osf.io/84xka.

Prevalence of gambling disorder and its correlates among homeless men in Osaka city, Japan.

Internationally, the prevalence of gambling disorder has been reported to be higher among homeless people than the general population; however, little is known about the factors associated with gambling disorder in this population. The present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of gambling disorder and its associated factors among homeless men using shelters in Osaka City. A cross-sectional survey was conducted from 30 to 2018 to 4 January 2019, using the 2017 Japanese National Survey of Gambling (JNSG) questionnaire, supplemented with questions about homeless experiences, drinking, and smoking. Using the South Oaks Gambling Screen, the presence of gambling disorder was determined by a score ≥ 5 out of 20. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to explore factors associated with lifetime gambling disorder. Lifetime and past-year prevalence of gambling disorder among 103 participants was 43.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.5-53.3) and 3.9% (95% CI: 1.5-9.6), respectively, which are higher than the 6.7% and 1.5% found among men in the 2017 JNSG. Reasons reported for currently gambling less were primarily financial. Factors associated with lifetime GD included "more than 20 years since the first incidence of homelessness" (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 4.97, 95% CI: 1.50-16.45) and "more than five incidences of homelessness" (AOR: 4.51, 95% CI: 1.06-19.26). When homeless individuals with gambling disorder try to rebuild and stabilize their lives, the presence or resurgence of gambling disorder may hinder the process and pose a risk of recurring homelessness. Comprehensive support services for homeless individuals with gambling disorder are required. (250 words).

Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials.

BACKGROUND: Valid assessment of drug efficacy and safety requires an evidence base free of reporting bias. Using trial reports in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval packages as a gold standard, we previously found that the published literature inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressant drugs. The objective of the current study was to determine whether this has improved with recently approved drugs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using medical and statistical reviews in FDA drug approval packages, we identified 30 Phase II/III double-blind placebo-controlled acute monotherapy trials, involving 13,747 patients, of desvenlafaxine, vilazodone, levomilnacipran, and vortioxetine; we then identified corresponding published reports. We compared the data from this newer cohort of antidepressants (approved February 2008 to September 2013) with the previously published dataset on 74 trials of 12 older antidepressants (approved December 1987 to August 2002). Using logistic regression, we examined the effects of trial outcome and trial cohort (newer versus older) on transparent reporting (whether published and FDA conclusions agreed). Among newer antidepressants, transparent publication occurred more with positive (15/15 = 100%) than negative (7/15 = 47%) trials (OR 35.1, CI95% 1.8 to 693). Controlling for trial outcome, transparent publication occurred more with newer than older trials (OR 6.6, CI95% 1.6 to 26.4). Within negative trials, transparent reporting increased from 11% to 47%. We also conducted and contrasted FDA- and journal-based meta-analyses. For newer antidepressants, FDA-based effect size (ESFDA) was 0.24 (CI95% 0.18 to 0.30), while journal-based effect size (ESJournals) was 0.29 (CI95% 0.23 to 0.36). Thus, effect size inflation, presumably due to reporting bias, was 0.05, less than for older antidepressants (0.10). Limitations of this study include a small number of trials and drugs-belonging to a single class-and a focus on efficacy (versus safety). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting bias persists but appears to have diminished for newer, compared to older, antidepressants. Continued efforts are needed to further improve transparency in the scientific literature.

Group Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy With Interoceptive Exposure for Drug-Refractory Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Few people can access psychotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Group cognitive-behavioral therapy (GCBT) may be efficient, but the evidence for its efficacy is weak and limited. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of GCBT with interoceptive exposure (GCBT-IE), a novel form of GCBT for drug-refractory IBS. METHODS: A single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in Japan among people aged 18-75 years with moderate-to-severe drug-refractory IBS. Participants were stratified by IBS severity and allocated 1:1 to 10-week GCBT-IE or waiting list (WL) in a blockwise randomization by independent staff. Both arms practiced self-monitoring and received treatment as usual. Multiple primary outcomes were changes from baseline to week 13 in the IBS Symptom Severity Score and the IBS Quality of Life Measure (IBS-QOL), assessed in the intention-to-treat sample. RESULTS: A total of 114 people with drug-refractory IBS were randomized to GCBT-IE (n = 54) or WL (n = 60). Forty-nine participants (90.7%) in the GCBT-IE arm and 58 (96.7%) in the WL arm completed the week 13 assessment. Participants in the GCBT-IE arm reported greater improvements in both IBS symptom severity and quality of life compared with the WL arm, with -115.8 vs -29.7 on the IBS Symptom Severity Score (a difference of -86.1, 95% confidence interval -117.3 to -55.0), and 20.1 vs -0.2 on the IBS-QOL (a difference of 20.3, 95% confidence interval 15.2-25.3), respectively. Six unexpected serious adverse events were reported but were judged as unrelated to the interventions. DISCUSSION: GCBT-IE is an efficacious, safe, and efficient treatment option for people with drug-refractory IBS.

Efficacy of Brief Intervention for Unhealthy Drug Use in Outpatient Medical Care: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of brief intervention (BI) for unhealthy drug use in outpatient medical care has not been sufficiently substantiated through meta-analysis despite its ongoing global delivery. This study aims to determine the efficacy of BI for unhealthy drug use and the expected length of effects, and describe subgroup analyses by outpatient setting. METHODS: Trials comparing BI with usual care controls were retrieved through four databases up to January 13, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data. Primary outcomes included drug use frequency (days used) and severity on validated scales at 4-8 months and were analyzed using random-effects model meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 20 studies with 9182 randomized patients were included. There was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of BI for unhealthy drug use among all outpatient medical care settings for use frequency (SMD = -0.07, 95% CI = -0.17, 0.02, p = 0.12, I2 = 37%, high certainty of evidence) and severity (SMD = -0.27, 95% CI = -0.78, 0.24, p = 0.30, I2 = 98%, low certainty of evidence). However, post hoc subgroup analyses uncovered significant effects for use frequency by setting (interaction p = 0.02), with significant small effects only in emergency departments (SMD = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.25, -0.04, p < 0.01). Primary care, student health, women's health, and HIV primary care subgroups were nonsignificant. Primary care BI revealed nonsignificant greater average use in the treatment group compared to usual care. DISCUSSION: BI for unhealthy drug use lacks evidence of efficacy among all outpatient medical settings. However, small effects found in emergency departments may indicate incremental benefits for some patients. Clinical decisions for SBI or specialty treatment program referrals should be carefully considered accounting for these small effects in emergency departments. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020157733).

Optimal dose of aripiprazole for augmentation therapy of antidepressant-refractory depression: preliminary findings based on a systematic review and dose-effect meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Aripiprazole augmentation is proven effective for antidepressant-refractory depression, but its licensed dose range is wide and optimal dosage remains unclear. AIMS: To find the optimal dosage of aripiprazole augmentation. METHOD: Multiple electronic databases were searched (from inception to 16 February 2021) to identify all assessor-masked randomised controlled trials evaluating aripiprazole augmentation therapy in adults (≥18 years old, both genders) with major depressive disorder showing inadequate response to at least one antidepressant treatment. A random-effects, one-stage dose-effect meta-analysis with restricted cubic splines was conducted. Outcomes were efficacy (treatment response: ≥50% reduction in depression severity), tolerability (drop-out due to adverse effects) and acceptability (drop-out for any reason) after 8 weeks of treatment (range 4-12 weeks). RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. All were individually randomised, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, parallel studies including 2625 participants in total. The maximum target dose-efficacy curve showed an increase up to doses between 2 mg (odds ratio OR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.85) and 5 mg (OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.33-2.81), and then a non-increasing trend through the higher licensed doses up to 20 mg (OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.52-2.37). Tolerability showed a similar trend with greater uncertainty. Acceptability showed no significant difference through the examined dose range. Certainty of evidence was low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose aripiprazole as augmentation treatment might achieve the optimal balance between efficacy, tolerability and acceptability in the acute treatment of antidepressant-refractory depression. However, the small number of included studies and the overall moderate to high risk of bias seriously compromise the reliability of the results. Further research is required to investigate the benefits of low versus high dose.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Psychotherapies are the treatment of choice for panic disorder, but which should be considered as first-line treatment is yet to be substantiated by evidence. AIMS: To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia via a network meta-analysis. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL, from inception to 1 Jan 2021 for RCTs. Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO (CRD42020206258). RESULTS: We included 136 RCTs in the systematic review. Taking into consideration efficacy (7352 participants), acceptability (6862 participants) and the CINeMA confidence in evidence appraisal, the best interventions in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) were cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) (for efficacy: standardised mean differences s.m.d. = -0.67, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.39; CINeMA: moderate; for acceptability: relative risk RR = 1.21, 95% CI -0.94 to 1.56; CINeMA: moderate) and short-term psychodynamic therapy (for efficacy: s.m.d. = -0.61, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.07; CINeMA: low; for acceptability: RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.54-1.54; CINeMA: moderate). After removing RCTs at high risk of bias only CBT remained more efficacious than TAU. CONCLUSIONS: CBT and short-term psychodynamic therapy are reasonable first-line choices. Studies with high risk of bias tend to inflate the overall efficacy of treatments. Results from this systematic review and network meta-analysis should inform clinicians and guidelines.