Effectiveness of psychological treatments for depressive disorders in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review of the currently available evidence on whether psychological treatments are effective for treating depressed primary care patients in comparison with usual care or placebo, taking the type of therapy and its delivery mode into account. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing a psychological treatment with a usual care or a placebo control in adult, depressed, primary care patients were identified by searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PsycINFO up to December 2013. At least 2 reviewers extracted information from included studies and assessed the risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were performed using posttreatment depression scores as outcome. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies with 5,159 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with control, the effect (standardized mean difference) at completion of treatment was -0.30 (95% CI, -0.48 to -0.13) for face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), -0.14 (-0.40 to 0.12) for face-to-face problem-solving therapy, -0.24 (-0.47 to -0.02) for face-to-face interpersonal psychotherapy, -0.28 (-0.44 to -0.12) for other face-to-face psychological interventions, -0.43 (-0.62 to -0.24) for remote therapist-led CBT, -0.56 (-1.57 to 0.45) for remote therapist-led problem-solving therapy, -0.40 (-0.69 to -0.11) for guided self-help CBT, and -0.27 (-0.44 to -0.10) for no or minimal contact CBT. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that psychological treatments are effective in depressed primary care patients. For CBT approaches, substantial evidence suggests that interventions that are less resource intensive might have effects similar to more intense treatments.

Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological treatments for depressive disorders in primary care: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether antidepressants are more effective than placebo in the primary care setting, and whether there are differences between substance classes regarding efficacy and acceptability. METHODS: We conducted literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PsycINFO up to December 2013. Randomized trials in depressed adults treated by primary care physicians were included in the review. We performed both conventional pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence. Main outcome measures were response and study discontinuation due to adverse effects. RESULTS: A total of 66 studies with 15,161 patients met the inclusion criteria. In network meta-analysis, tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants (TCAs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI; venlafaxine), a low-dose serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitor (SARI; trazodone) and hypericum extracts were found to be significantly superior to placebo, with estimated odds ratios between 1.69 and 2.03. There were no statistically significant differences between these drug classes. Reversible inhibitors of monoaminoxidase A (rMAO-As) and hypericum extracts were associated with significantly fewer dropouts because of adverse effects compared with TCAs, SSRIs, the SNRI, a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (NRI), and noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant agents (NaSSAs). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other drugs, TCAs and SSRIs have the most solid evidence base for being effective in the primary care setting, but the effect size compared with placebo is relatively small. Further agents (hypericum, rMAO-As, SNRI, NRI, NaSSAs, SARI) showed some positive results, but limitations of the currently available evidence makes a clear recommendation on their place in clinical practice difficult.

Comparative effectiveness of psychological treatments for depressive disorders in primary care: network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A variety of psychological interventions to treat depressive disorders have been developed and are used in primary care. In a systematic review, we compared the effectiveness of psychological treatments grouped by theoretical background, intensity of contact with the health care professional, and delivery mode for depressed patients in this setting. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing a psychological treatment with usual care, placebo, another psychological treatment, pharmacotherapy, or a combination treatment in adult depressed primary care patients were identified by database searches up to December 2013. We performed both conventional pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence. Outcome measures were response to treatment (primary outcome), remission of symptoms, post-treatment depression scores and study discontinuation. RESULTS: A total of 37 studies with 7,024 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among the psychological treatments investigated in at least 150 patients face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; OR 1.80; 95 % credible interval 1.35-2.39), face-to-face counselling and psychoeducation (1.65; 1.27-2.13), remote therapist lead CBT (1.87; 1.38-2.53), guided self-help CBT (1.68; 1.22-2.30) and no/minimal contact CBT (1.53; 1.07-2.17) were superior to usual care or placebo, but not face-to-face problem-solving therapy and face-to-face interpersonal therapy. There were no statistical differences between psychological treatments apart from face-to-face interpersonal psychotherapy being inferior to remote therapist-lead CBT (0.60; 0.37-0.95). Remote therapist-led (0.86; 0.21-3.67), guided self-help (0.93; 0.62-1.41) and no/minimal contact CBT (0.85; 0.54-1.36) had similar effects as face-to-face CBT. CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence precludes a sufficiently reliable assessment of the comparative effectiveness of psychological treatments in depressed primary care patients. Findings suggest that psychological interventions with a cognitive behavioral approach are promising, and primarily indirect evidence indicates that it applies also when they are delivered with a reduced number of therapist contacts or remotely. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: 01KG1012 at http://www.gesundheitsforschung-bmbf.de/de/2852.php.

Treatment of depressive disorders in primary care--protocol of a multiple treatment systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Several systematic reviews have summarized the evidence for specific treatments of primary care patients suffering from depression. However, it is not possible to answer the question how the available treatment options compare with each other as review methods differ. We aim to systematically review and compare the available evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological, psychological, and combined treatments for patients with depressive disorders in primary care. METHODS/DESIGN: To be included, studies have to be randomized trials comparing antidepressant medication (tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), hypericum extracts, other agents) and/or psychological therapies (e.g. interpersonal psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, behavioural therapy, short dynamically-oriented psychotherapy) with another active therapy, placebo or sham intervention, routine care or no treatment in primary care patients in the acute phase of a depressive episode. Main outcome measure is response after completion of acute phase treatment. Eligible studies will be identified from available systematic reviews, from searches in electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Central), trial registers, and citation tracking. Two reviewers will independently extract study data and assess the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's corresponding tool. Meta-analyses (random effects model, inverse variance weighting) will be performed for direct comparisons of single interventions and for groups of similar interventions (e.g. SSRIs vs. tricyclics) and defined time-windows (up to 3 months and above). If possible, a global analysis of the relative effectiveness of treatments will be estimated from all available direct and indirect evidence that is present in a network of treatments and comparisons. DISCUSSION: Practitioners do not only want to know whether there is evidence that a specific treatment is more effective than placebo, but also how the treatment options compare to each other. Therefore, we believe that a multiple treatment systematic review of primary-care based randomized controlled trials on the most important therapies against depression is timely.