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.

Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms and endoscopy negative reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 25% of adults regularly experience heartburn, a symptom of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). Most patients are treated empirically (without specific diagnostic evaluation e.g. endoscopy. Among patients who have an upper endoscopy, findings range from a normal appearance, mild erythema to severe oesophagitis with stricture formation. Patients without visible damage to the oesophagus have endoscopy negative reflux disease (ENRD). The pathogenesis of ENRD, and its response to treatment may differ from GORD with oesophagitis. OBJECTIVES: Summarise, quantify and compare the efficacy of short-term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), H2-receptor antagonists (H2RA) and prokinetics in adults with GORD, treated empirically and in those with endoscopy negative reflux disease (ENRD). SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2011), EMBASE (January 1988 to November 2011), and EBMR in November 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials reporting symptomatic outcome after short-term treatment for GORD using proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists or prokinetic agents. Participants had to be either from an empirical treatment group (no endoscopy used in treatment allocation) or from an endoscopy negative reflux disease group (no signs of erosive oesophagitis). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-four trials (1314 participants) were included: fifteen in the empirical treatment group, fifteen in the ENRD group and four in both. In empirical treatment of GORD the risk ratio (RR) for heartburn remission (the primary efficacy variable) in placebo-controlled trials for PPI was 0.37 (two trials, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 0.44), for H2RAs 0.77 (two trials, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99) and for prokinetics 0.86 (one trial, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01). In a direct comparison PPIs were more effective than H2RAs (seven trials, RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.73) and prokinetics (two trials, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87).In treatment of ENRD, the RR for heartburn remission for PPI versus placebo was 0.71 (ten trials, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.78) and for H2RA versus placebo was 0.84 (two trials, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.95). The RR for PPI versus H2RA was 0.78 (three trials, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.97) and for PPI versus prokinetic 0.72 (one trial, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.92). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PPIs are more effective than H2RAs in relieving heartburn in patients with GORD who are treated empirically and in those with ENRD, although the magnitude of benefit is greater for those treated empirically.

Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms and endoscopy negative reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 25% of adults regularly experience heartburn, a symptom of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). Most patients are treated empirically (without specific diagnostic evaluation e.g. endoscopy. Among patients who have an upper endoscopy, findings range from a normal appearance, mild erythema to severe oesophagitis with stricture formation. Patients without visible damage to the oesophagus have endoscopy negative reflux disease (ENRD). The pathogenesis of ENRD, and its response to treatment may differ from GORD with oesophagitis. OBJECTIVES: Summarise, quantify and compare the efficacy of short-term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), H2-receptor antagonists (H2RA) and prokinetics in adults with GORD, treated empirically and in those with endoscopy negative reflux disease (ENRD). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2008), EMBASE (January 1988 to November 2008), and EBMR in November 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials reporting symptomatic outcome after short-term treatment for GORD using proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists or prokinetic agents. Participants had to be either from an empirical treatment group (no endoscopy used in treatment allocation) or from an endoscopy negative reflux disease group (no signs of erosive oesophagitis). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-two trials (9738 participants) were included: fifteen in the empirical treatment group, thirteen in the ENRD group and four in both. In empirical treatment of GORD the relative risk (RR) for heartburn remission (the primary efficacy variable) in placebo-controlled trials for PPI was 0.37 (two trials, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 0.44), for H2RAs 0.77 (two trials, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99) and for prokinetics 0.86 (one trial, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01). In a direct comparison PPIs were more effective than H2RAs (seven trials, RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.73) and prokinetics (two trials, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87). In treatment of ENRD, the RR for heartburn remission for PPI versus placebo was 0.73 (eight trials, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.78) and for H2RA versus placebo was 0.84 (two trials, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.95). The RR for PPI versus H2RA was 0.78 (three trials, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.97) and for PPI versus prokinetic 0.72 (one trial, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.92). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PPIs are more effective than H2RAs in relieving heartburn in patients with GORD who are treated empirically and in those with ENRD, although the magnitude of benefit is greater for those treated empirically.