EMDR v. other psychological therapies for PTSD: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) examined the overall effectiveness of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) in reducing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, achieving response and remission, and reducing treatment dropout among adults with PTSD compared to other psychological treatments. Additionally, we examined available participant-level moderators of the efficacy of EMDR. METHODS: This study included randomized controlled trials. Eligible studies were identified by a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, PsyclNFO, PTSDpubs, and CENTRAL. The target population was adults with above-threshold baseline PTSD symptoms. Trials were eligible if at least 70% of study participants had been diagnosed with PTSD using a structured clinical interview. Primary outcomes included PTSD symptom severity, treatment response, and PTSD remission. Treatment dropout was a secondary outcome. The systematic search retrieved 15 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs); 8 of these 15 were able to be included in this IPDMA (346 patients). Comparator treatments included relaxation therapy, emotional freedom technique, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral psychotherapies, and REM-desensitization. RESULTS: One-stage IPDMA found no significant difference between EMDR and other psychological treatments in reducing PTSD symptom severity (ß = -0.24), achieving response (ß = 0.86), attaining remission (ß = 1.05), or reducing treatment dropout rates (ß = -0.25). Moderator analyses found unemployed participants receiving EMDR had higher PTSD symptom severity at the post-test, and males were more likely to drop out of EMDR treatment than females. CONCLUSION: The current study found no significant difference between EMDR and other psychological treatments. We found some indication of the moderating effects of gender and employment status.

New living evidence resource of human and non-human studies for early intervention and research prioritisation in anxiety, depression and psychosis.

In anxiety, depression and psychosis, there has been frustratingly slow progress in developing novel therapies that make a substantial difference in practice, as well as in predicting which treatments will work for whom and in what contexts. To intervene early in the process and deliver optimal care to patients, we need to understand the underlying mechanisms of mental health conditions, develop safe and effective interventions that target these mechanisms, and improve our capabilities in timely diagnosis and reliable prediction of symptom trajectories. Better synthesis of existing evidence is one way to reduce waste and improve efficiency in research towards these ends. Living systematic reviews produce rigorous, up-to-date and informative evidence summaries that are particularly important where research is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain and new findings might change policy or practice. Global Alliance for Living Evidence on aNxiety, depressiOn and pSychosis (GALENOS) aims to tackle the challenges of mental health science research by cataloguing and evaluating the full spectrum of relevant scientific research including both human and preclinical studies. GALENOS will also allow the mental health community-including patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and funders-to better identify the research questions that most urgently need to be answered. By creating open-access datasets and outputs in a state-of-the-art online resource, GALENOS will help identify promising signals early in the research process. This will accelerate translation from discovery science into effective new interventions for anxiety, depression and psychosis, ready to be translated in clinical practice across the world.

Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists for psychosis: protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis of human and non-human studies.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to develop more effective and safer antipsychotics beyond dopamine 2 receptor antagonists. An emerging and promising approach is TAAR1 agonism. Therefore, we will conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize and triangulate the evidence from preclinical animal experiments and clinical studies on the efficacy, safety, and underlying mechanism of action of TAAR1 agonism for psychosis. METHODS: Independent searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases to identify clinical and animal experimental studies comparing TAAR1 agonists with licensed antipsychotics or other control conditions in individuals with psychosis or animal models for psychosis, respectively. The primary outcomes will be overall psychotic symptoms and their behavioural proxies in animals. Secondary outcomes will include side effects and neurobiological measures. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction using predefined forms, and risk of bias assessment using suitable tools based on the study design. Ontologies will be developed to facilitate study identification and data extraction. Data from clinical and animal studies will be synthesized separately using random-effects meta-analysis if appropriate, or synthesis without meta-analysis. Study characteristics will be investigated as potential sources of heterogeneity. Confidence in the evidence for each outcome and source of evidence will be evaluated, considering the summary of the association, potential concerns regarding internal and external validity, and reporting biases. When multiple sources of evidence are available for an outcome, an overall conclusion will be drawn in a triangulation meeting involving a multidisciplinary team of experts. We plan trimonthly updates of the review, and any modifications in the protocol will be documented. The review will be co-produced by multiple stakeholders aiming to produce impactful and relevant results and bridge the gap between preclinical and clinical research on psychosis. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023451628.

Protocol for individual participant data meta-analysis of interventions for post-traumatic stress.

INTRODUCTION: Several evidence-based treatments are effective for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), yet a substantial proportion of patients do not respond or dropout of treatment. We describe the protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aimed at assessing the effectiveness and adverse effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy interventions for treating PTSD. Additionally, we seek to examine moderators and predictors of treatment outcomes. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This IPD-MA includes randomised controlled trials comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy interventions for PTSD. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, PTSDpubs and CENTRAL will be screened up till the 11th of January 2021. The target population is adults with above-threshold baseline PTSD symptoms on any standardised self-report measure. Trials will only be eligible if at least 70% of the study sample have been diagnosed with PTSD by means of a structured clinical interview. The primary outcomes of this IPD-MA are PTSD symptom severity, and response rate. Secondary outcomes include treatment dropout and adverse effects. Two independent reviewers will screen major bibliographic databases and past reviews. Authors will be contacted to contribute their participant-level datasets. Datasets will be merged into a master dataset. A one-stage IPD-MA will be conducted focusing on the effects of psychological and pharmacological interventions on PTSD symptom severity, response rate, treatment dropout and adverse effects. Subsequent analyses will focus on examining the effect of moderators and predictors of treatment outcomes. These will include sociodemographic, treatment-related, symptom-related, resilience, intervention, trauma and combat-related characteristics. By determining the individual factors that influence the effectiveness of specific PTSD treatments, we will gain insight into personalised treatment options for PTSD. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Specific ethics approval for an IPD-MA is not required as this study entails secondary analysis of existing anonymised data. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations.

Cortisol levels in different tissue samples in posttraumatic stress disorder patients versus controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a disorder that develops following exposure to severely stressful events. Altered cortisol secretion has been reported in PTSD; however, results have been inconsistent. Previous meta-analyses of cortisol levels in PTSD have combined results of studies that have used different tissue samples (blood, saliva, urine) for cortisol measurement and have not included newer methods of determining cortisol levels (e.g. hair samples). In this systematic review, we will synthesise evidence from studies evaluating basal cortisol levels in PTSD patients versus controls and stratify studies according to tissue type used for cortisol measurement. We will also determine whether results from different tissue types can be pooled and if any specific tissue samples have better utility in research studies on PTSD. METHODS: We will perform a systematic review of the scientific literature including all studies that have evaluated basal or baseline cortisol levels in adults with current PTSD versus controls, with and without trauma exposure. Independent reviewers will conduct searches in electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, PTSDpubs, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP), and additional studies will be obtained by searching the reference lists of articles. Two reviewers (LLvdH and SW) will independently conduct standardised screening, eligibility assessments, data extraction, and quality assessments before qualitative and, if appropriate, quantitative (meta-analysis and meta-regression) synthesis. Disagreements that arise at any stage will be resolved by a third reviewer (ShS). DISCUSSION: In line with previous reviews, we expect that cortisol levels will be lower in PTSD patients than in controls, but that patterns may vary somewhat according to the tissue sample in which cortisol is measured. This systematic review will assist in developing a better understanding of the acute and chronic patterns of basal cortisol secretion in PTSD and will inform future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018091874.