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.

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.

Mood Stabilizers and Antipsychotics for Acute Mania: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Augmentation Therapy vs Monotherapy From the Perspective of Time to the Onset of Treatment Effects.

BACKGROUND: Existing meta-analytic evidence on bipolar mania treatment has revealed that augmentation therapy (AUG) with antipsychotics and mood stabilizers is more effective than monotherapy. However, the speed of the onset of treatment effects and subsequent changes in risk/benefit are unclear. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases until January 2021. Our primary outcomes were response and tolerability. We set 3 time points: 1, 3, and 6 weeks after randomization. RESULTS: Seventeen studies compared AUG therapy and MS monotherapy (comparison 1), and 8 studies compared AUG therapy and antipsychotics monotherapy (comparison 2). In comparison 1, AUG therapy resulted in significantly more responses than monotherapy, with an odds ratio of 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17 to 1.80) at 3 weeks and 1.59 (95% CI: 1.28 to 1.99) at 6 weeks. Significant improvement was observed in the first week with a standardized mean difference of -0.25 (95% CI: -0.38 to -0.12). In comparison 2, AUG therapy was significantly more effective than monotherapy, with an odds ratio of 1.73 (95% CI: 1.25 to 2.40) at 3 weeks and 1.74 (95% CI: 1.11 to 2.73) at 6 weeks. Significant improvement was observed in the first week with an standardized mean difference of -0.23 (95% CI: -0.39 to -0.07). Regarding tolerability, there was no significant difference between AUG therapy and monotherapy at 3 and 6 weeks in both comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Early AUG therapy should be considered, as it has shown efficacy from weeks 1 to 6, although attention to side effects is necessary for acute mania treatment.

Discontinuation of antidepressants after remission with antidepressant medication in major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

A significant clinical issue encountered after a successful acute major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment is the relapse of depressive symptoms. Although continuing maintenance therapy with antidepressants is generally recommended, there is no established protocol on whether or not it is necessary to prescribe the antidepressant used to achieve remission. In this meta-analysis, the risk of relapse and treatment failure when either continuing with the same drug used to achieved remission or switching to a placebo was assessed in several clinically significant subgroups. The pooled odds ratio (OR) (±95% confidence intervals (CI)) was calculated using a random effects model. Across 40 studies (n = 8890), the relapse rate was significantly lower in the antidepressant group than the placebo group by about 20% (OR = 0.38, CI: 0.33-0.43, p < 0.00001; 20.9% vs 39.7%). The difference in the relapse rate between the antidepressant and placebo groups was greater for tricyclics (25.3%; OR = 0.30, CI: 0.17-0.50, p < 0.00001), SSRIs (21.8%; OR = 0.33, CI: 0.28-0.38, p < 0.00001), and other newer agents (16.0%; OR = 0.44, CI: 0.36-0.54, p < 0.00001) in that order, while the effect size of acceptability was greater for SSRIs than for other antidepressants. A flexible dose schedule (OR = 0.30, CI: 0.23-0.48, p < 0.00001) had a greater effect size than a fixed dose (OR = 0.41, CI: 0.36-0.48, p < 0.00001) in comparison to placebo. Even in studies assigned after continuous treatment for more than 6 months after remission, the continued use of antidepressants had a lower relapse rate than the use of a placebo (OR = 0.40, CI: 0.29-0.55, p < 0.00001; 20.2% vs 37.2%). The difference in relapse rate was similar from a maintenance period of 6 months (OR = 0.41, CI: 0.35-0.48, p < 0.00001; 19.6% vs 37.6%) to over 1 year (OR = 0.35, CI: 0.29-0.41, p < 0.00001; 19.9% vs 39.8%). The all-cause dropout of antidepressant and placebo groups was 43% and 58%, respectively, (OR = 0.47, CI: 0.40-0.55, p < 0.00001). The tolerability rate was ~4% for both groups. The rate of relapse (OR = 0.32, CI: 0.18-0.64, p = 0.0010, 41.0% vs 66.7%) and all-cause dropout among adolescents was higher than in adults. To prevent relapse and treatment failure, maintenance therapy, and careful attention for at least 6 months after remission is recommended. SSRIs are well-balanced agents, and flexible dose adjustments are more effective for relapse prevention.

Unguided Computer-Assisted Self-Help Interventions Without Human Contact in Patients With Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted treatment may reduce therapist contact and costs and promote client participation. This meta-analysis examined the efficacy and acceptability of an unguided computer-assisted therapy in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) compared with a waiting list or attention placebo. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and adherence of computer-assisted self-help treatment without human contact in patients with OCD using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials with participants primarily diagnosed with OCD by health professionals with clinically significant OCD symptoms as measured with validated scales were included. The interventions included self-help treatment through the internet, computers, and smartphones. We excluded interventions that used human contact. We conducted a search on PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov, as well as the reference lists of the included studies. The risk of bias was evaluated using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. We calculated the standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. The primary outcomes were short-term improvement of OCD symptoms measured by validated scales and dropout for any reason. RESULTS: We included 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 983 participants. The results indicated that unguided computer-assisted self-help therapy was significantly more effective than a waiting list or psychological placebo (standard mean difference -0.47, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.22). Unguided computer-assisted self-help therapy had more dropouts for any reason than waiting list or psychological placebo (risk ratio 1.98, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.23). However, the quality of evidence was very low because of the risk of bias and inconsistent results among the included studies. The subgroup analysis showed that exposure response and prevention and an intervention duration of more than 4 weeks strengthen the efficacy without worsening acceptability. Only a few studies have examined the interaction between participants and systems, and no study has used gamification. Most researchers only used text-based interventions, and no study has used a mobile device. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was high and the heterogeneity of results was moderate to considerable. CONCLUSIONS: Unguided computer-assisted self-help therapy for OCD is effective compared with waiting lists or psychological placebo. An exposure response and prevention component and intervention duration of more than 4 weeks may strengthen the efficacy without worsening the acceptability of the therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42021264644; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=264644.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available; however, because of inadequate resources, antidepressants are used more frequently than psychological interventions. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder. METHODS: We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, the websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomised controlled trials from their inception to Jan 8, 2016. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants used for the acute treatment of adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) with major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression; or patients with a serious concomitant medical illness. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy. In network meta-analysis, we used group-level data. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (treatment discontinuations due to any cause). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002291. FINDINGS: We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·89-2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16-1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, only agomelatine (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72-0·97) and fluoxetine (0·88, 0·80-0·96) were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo, whereas clomipramine was worse than placebo (1·30, 1·01-1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in ORs between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 to 1·55 for efficacy and from 0·64 to 0·83 for acceptability, with wide CrIs on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19-1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51-0·84). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43-0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (1·30-2·32). 46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. INTERPRETATION: All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policy makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Predicting recurrence of depression using lifelog data: an explanatory feasibility study with a panel VAR approach.

BACKGROUND: Although depression has a high rate of recurrence, no prior studies have established a method that could identify the warning signs of its recurrence. METHODS: We collected digital data consisting of individual activity records such as location or mobility information (lifelog data) from 89 patients who were on maintenance therapy for depression for a year, using a smartphone application and a wearable device. We assessed depression and its recurrence using both the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. RESULTS: A panel vector autoregressive analysis indicated that long sleep time was a important risk factor for the recurrence of depression. Long sleep predicted the recurrence of depression after 3 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The panel vector autoregressive approach can identify the warning signs of depression recurrence; however, the convenient sampling of the present cohort may limit the scope towards drawing a generalised conclusion.

Antidepressants plus benzodiazepines for adults with major depression.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety frequently coexists with depression and adding benzodiazepines to antidepressant treatment is common practice to treat people with major depression. However, more evidence is needed to determine whether this combined treatment is more effective and not any more harmful than antidepressants alone. It has been suggested that benzodiazepines may lose their efficacy with long-term administration and their chronic use carries risks of dependence.This is the 2019 updated version of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and previously updated in 2005. This update follows a new protocol to conform with the most recent Cochrane methodology guidelines, with the inclusion of 'Summary of findings' tables and GRADE evaluations for quality of evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of combining antidepressants with benzodiazepines compared with antidepressants alone for major depression in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to May 2019. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify any additional unpublished or ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials that compared combined antidepressant plus benzodiazepine treatment with antidepressants alone for adults with major depression. We excluded studies administering psychosocial therapies targeted at depression and anxiety disorders concurrently. Antidepressants had to be prescribed, on average, at or above the minimum effective dose as presented by Hansen 2009 or according to the North American or European regulations. The combination therapy had to last at least four weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We entered data into Review Manager 5. We used intention-to-treat data. We combined continuous outcome variables of depressive and anxiety severity using standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous efficacy outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Regarding the primary outcome of acceptability, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 studies published between 1978 to 2002 involving 731 participants. Six studies used tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), two studies used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), one study used another heterocyclic antidepressant and one study used TCA or heterocyclic antidepressant.Combined therapy of benzodiazepines plus antidepressants was more effective than antidepressants alone for depressive severity in the early phase (four weeks) (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.03; 10 studies, 598 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference between treatments in the acute phase (five to 12 weeks) (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.03; 7 studies, 347 participants; low-quality evidence) or in the continuous phase (more than 12 weeks) (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.35; 1 study, 50 participants; low-quality evidence). For acceptability of treatment, there was no difference in the dropouts due to any reason between combined therapy and antidepressants alone (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.07; 10 studies, 731 participants; moderate-quality evidence).For response in depression, combined therapy was more effective than antidepressants alone in the early phase (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58; 10 studies, 731 participants), but there was no evidence of a difference in the acute phase (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.35; 7 studies, 383 participants) or in the continuous phase (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.29; 1 study, 52 participants). For remission in depression, combined therapy was more effective than antidepressants alone in the early phase (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90, 10 studies, 731 participants), but there was no evidence of a difference in the acute phase (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.63; 7 studies, 383 participants) or in the continuous phase (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.16; 1 study, 52 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between combined therapy and antidepressants alone for anxiety severity in the early phase (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.67 to 0.14; 3 studies, 129 participants) or in the acute phase (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.10; 3 studies, 129 participants). No studies measured severity of insomnia. In terms of adverse effects, the dropout rates due to adverse events were lower for combined therapy than for antidepressants alone (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 10 studies, 731 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, participants in the combined therapy group reported at least one adverse effect more often than participants who received antidepressants alone (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23; 7 studies, 510 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Most domains of risk of bias in the majority of the included studies were unclear. Random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective outcome reporting were problematic due to insufficient details reported in most of the included studies and lack of availability of the study protocols. The greatest limitation in the quality of evidence was issues with attrition. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Combined antidepressant plus benzodiazepine therapy was more effective than antidepressants alone in improving depression severity, response in depression and remission in depression in the early phase. However, these effects were not maintained in the acute or the continuous phase. Combined therapy resulted in fewer dropouts due to adverse events than antidepressants alone, but combined therapy was associated with a greater proportion of participants reporting at least one adverse effect.The moderate quality evidence of benefits of adding a benzodiazepine to an antidepressant in the early phase must be balanced judiciously against possible harms and consideration given to other alternative treatment strategies when antidepressant monotherapy may be considered inadequate. We need long-term, pragmatic randomised controlled trials to compare combination therapy against the monotherapy of antidepressant in major depression.

Optimising first- and second-line treatment strategies for untreated major depressive disorder - the SUN☺D study: a pragmatic, multi-centre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients starting treatment for depression, current guidelines recommend titrating the antidepressant dosage to the maximum of the licenced range if tolerated. When patients do not achieve remission within several weeks, recommendations include adding or switching to another antidepressant. However, the relative merits of these guideline strategies remain unestablished. METHODS: This multi-centre, open-label, assessor-blinded, pragmatic trial involved two steps. Step 1 used open-cluster randomisation, allocating clinics into those titrating sertraline up to 50 mg/day or 100 mg/day by week 3. Step 2 used central randomisation to allocate patients who did not remit after 3 weeks of treatment to continue sertraline, to add mirtazapine or to switch to mirtazapine. The primary outcome was depression severity measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) (scores between 0 and 27; higher scores, greater depression) at week 9. We applied mixed-model repeated-measures analysis adjusted for key baseline covariates. RESULTS: Between December 2010 and March 2015, we recruited 2011 participants with hitherto untreated major depression at 48 clinics in Japan. In step 1, 970 participants were allocated to the 50 mg/day and 1041 to the 100 mg/day arms; 1927 (95.8%) provided primary outcomes. There was no statistically significant difference in the adjusted PHQ-9 score at week 9 between the 50 mg/day arm and the 100 mg/day arm (0.25 point, 95% confidence interval (CI), - 0.58 to 1.07, P = 0.55). Other outcomes proved similar in the two groups. In step 2, 1646 participants not remitted by week 3 were randomised to continue sertraline (n = 551), to add mirtazapine (n = 537) or to switch to mirtazapine (n = 558): 1613 (98.0%) provided primary outcomes. At week 9, adding mirtazapine achieved a reduction in PHQ-9 scores of 0.99 point (0.43 to 1.55, P = 0.0012); switching achieved a reduction of 1.01 points (0.46 to 1.56, P = 0.0012), both relative to continuing sertraline. Combination increased the percentage of remission by 12.4% (6.1 to 19.0%) and switching by 8.4% (2.5 to 14.8%). There were no differences in adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with new onset depression, we found no advantage of titrating sertraline to 100 mg vs 50 mg. Patients unremitted by week 3 gained a small benefit in reduction of depressive symptoms at week 9 by switching sertraline to mirtazapine or by adding mirtazapine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01109693 . Registered on 23 April 2010.

Dismantling cognitive-behaviour therapy for panic disorder: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis.

Cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) for panic disorder may consist of different combinations of several therapeutic components such as relaxation, breathing retraining, cognitive restructuring, interoceptive exposure and/or in vivo exposure. It is therefore important both theoretically and clinically to examine whether specific components of CBT or their combinations are superior to others in the treatment of panic disorder. Component network meta-analysis (NMA) is an extension of standard NMA that can be used to disentangle the treatment effects of different components included in composite interventions. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central, with supplementary searches of reference lists and clinical trial registries, for all randomized controlled trials comparing different CBT-based psychological therapies for panic disorder with each other or with control interventions. We applied component NMA to disentangle the treatment effects of different components included in these interventions. After reviewing 2526 references, we included 72 studies with 4064 participants. Interoceptive exposure and face-to-face setting were associated with better treatment efficacy and acceptability. Muscle relaxation and virtual-reality exposure were associated with significantly lower efficacy. Components such as breathing retraining and in vivo exposure appeared to improve treatment acceptability while having small effects on efficacy. The comparison of the most v. the least efficacious combination, both of which may be provided as 'evidence-based CBT,' yielded an odds ratio for the remission of 7.69 (95% credible interval: 1.75 to 33.33). Effective CBT packages for panic disorder would include face-to-face and interoceptive exposure components, while excluding muscle relaxation and virtual-reality exposure.

HTR1A Polymorphisms and Clinical Efficacy of Antipsychotic Drug Treatment in Schizophrenia: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate whether HTR1A gene polymorphisms impact the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Candidate gene studies that were published in English up to August 6, 2015 were identified by a literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Google scholar. Data were pooled from individual clinical trials considering overall symptoms, positive symptoms and negative symptoms, and standard mean differences were calculated by applying a random-effects model. RESULTS: The present meta-analysis included a total of 1281 patients from 10 studies. Three polymorphisms of HTR1A (rs6295, rs878567, and rs1423691) were selected for the analysis. In the pooled data from all studies, none of these HTR1A polymorphisms correlated significantly with either overall symptoms or positive symptoms. However, C allele carriers of the rs6295 polymorphism showed a significantly greater negative symptoms improvement than G allele carriers (P=.04, standardized mean difference =-0.14, 95％CI = 0.01 to 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our present analysis indicate that the HTR1A rs6295 polymorphism may impact negative symptoms improvement but not on either overall symptoms or positive symptoms improvement. However, this meta-analysis was based on a small number of studies and patients, and the effect size on negative symptoms was small. Given this limitation, the results should be confirmed by further investigations.

Remifentanil in electroconvulsive therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

In electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), remifentanil is often used concurrently with anesthetics. The objective of this study was to provide an up-to-date and comprehensive review on how the addition of remifentanil to anesthetics affects seizure duration and circulatory dynamics in mECT. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs that investigated seizure duration and circulatory dynamics in patients treated with ECT using anesthetics alone (non-remifentanil group) and with anesthetics plus remifentanil (remifentanil group). A total of 13 RCTs (380 patients and 1024 ECT sessions) were included. The remifentanil group showed a significantly prolonged seizure duration during ECT compared to the non-remifentanil group [motor: 9 studies, SMD = 1.25, 95 % CI (0.21, 2.29), p = 0.02; electroencephalogram: 8 studies, SMD = 0.98, 95 % CI (0.14, 1.82), p = 0.02]. The maximum systolic blood pressure (SBP) was significantly reduced in the remifentanil group compared to the non-remifentanil group [7 studies, SMD = -0.36, 95 % CI (-0.65, 0.07), p = 0.02]. Substantial heterogeneity was observed for meta-analyses for seizure durations, but a pre-planned subgroup analysis revealed that seizure duration was prolonged only when the use of the anesthetic dose was reduced in the remifentanil group. The results of our study suggest that addition of remifentanil to anesthesia in ECT may lead to prolonged seizure duration when it allows the use of reduced anesthetic doses. Further, the addition of remifentanil was associated with reduced maximum SBP.

Psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Panic disorder is characterised by the presence of recurrent unexpected panic attacks, discrete periods of fear or anxiety that have a rapid onset and include symptoms such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating and shaking. Panic disorder is common in the general population, with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 4%. A previous Cochrane meta-analysis suggested that psychological therapy (either alone or combined with pharmacotherapy) can be chosen as a first-line treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. However, it is not yet clear whether certain psychological therapies can be considered superior to others. In order to answer this question, in this review we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA), in which we compared eight different forms of psychological therapy and three forms of a control condition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and acceptability of different psychological therapies and different control conditions for panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the main searches in the CCDANCTR electronic databases (studies and references registers), all years to 16 March 2015. We conducted complementary searches in PubMed and trials registries. Supplementary searches included reference lists of included studies, citation indexes, personal communication to the authors of all included studies and grey literature searches in OpenSIGLE. We applied no restrictions on date, language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on adults with a formal diagnosis of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. We considered the following psychological therapies: psychoeducation (PE), supportive psychotherapy (SP), physiological therapies (PT), behaviour therapy (BT), cognitive therapy (CT), cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), third-wave CBT (3W) and psychodynamic therapies (PD). We included both individual and group formats. Therapies had to be administered face-to-face. The comparator interventions considered for this review were: no treatment (NT), wait list (WL) and attention/psychological placebo (APP). For this review we considered four short-term (ST) outcomes (ST-remission, ST-response, ST-dropouts, ST-improvement on a continuous scale) and one long-term (LT) outcome (LT-remission/response). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: As a first step, we conducted a systematic search of all relevant papers according to the inclusion criteria. For each outcome, we then constructed a treatment network in order to clarify the extent to which each type of therapy and each comparison had been investigated in the available literature. Then, for each available comparison, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. Subsequently, we performed a network meta-analysis in order to synthesise the available direct evidence with indirect evidence, and to obtain an overall effect size estimate for each possible pair of therapies in the network. Finally, we calculated a probabilistic ranking of the different psychological therapies and control conditions for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1432 references; after screening, we included 60 studies in the final qualitative analyses. Among these, 54 (including 3021 patients) were also included in the quantitative analyses. With respect to the analyses for the first of our primary outcomes, (short-term remission), the most studied of the included psychological therapies was CBT (32 studies), followed by BT (12 studies), PT (10 studies), CT (three studies), SP (three studies) and PD (two studies).The quality of the evidence for the entire network was found to be low for all outcomes. The quality of the evidence for CBT vs NT, CBT vs SP and CBT vs PD was low to very low, depending on the outcome. The majority of the included studies were at unclear risk of bias with regard to the randomisation process. We found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and detection bias. We also found selective outcome reporting bias to be present and we strongly suspected publication bias. Finally, we found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of researcher allegiance bias.Overall the networks appeared to be well connected, but were generally underpowered to detect any important disagreement between direct and indirect evidence. The results showed the superiority of psychological therapies over the WL condition, although this finding was amplified by evident small study effects (SSE). The NMAs for ST-remission, ST-response and ST-improvement on a continuous scale showed well-replicated evidence in favour of CBT, as well as some sparse but relevant evidence in favour of PD and SP, over other therapies. In terms of ST-dropouts, PD and 3W showed better tolerability over other psychological therapies in the short term. In the long term, CBT and PD showed the highest level of remission/response, suggesting that the effects of these two treatments may be more stable with respect to other psychological therapies. However, all the mentioned differences among active treatments must be interpreted while taking into account that in most cases the effect sizes were small and/or results were imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no high-quality, unequivocal evidence to support one psychological therapy over the others for the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults. However, the results show that CBT - the most extensively studied among the included psychological therapies - was often superior to other therapies, although the effect size was small and the level of precision was often insufficient or clinically irrelevant. In the only two studies available that explored PD, this treatment showed promising results, although further research is needed in order to better explore the relative efficacy of PD with respect to CBT. Furthermore, PD appeared to be the best tolerated (in terms of ST-dropouts) among psychological treatments. Unexpectedly, we found some evidence in support of the possible viability of non-specific supportive psychotherapy for the treatment of panic disorder; however, the results concerning SP should be interpreted cautiously because of the sparsity of evidence regarding this treatment and, as in the case of PD, further research is needed to explore this issue. Behaviour therapy did not appear to be a valid alternative to CBT as a first-line treatment for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia.

Psychological therapies versus pharmacological interventions for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults.

BACKGROUND: Panic disorder is common and deleterious to mental well-being. Psychological therapies and pharmacological interventions are both used as treatments for panic disorder with and without agoraphobia. However, there are no up-to-date reviews on the comparative efficacy and acceptability of the two treatment modalities, and such a review is necessary for improved treatment planning for this disorder. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of psychological therapies versus pharmacological interventions for panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group Specialised Register on 11 September 2015. This register contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950 to present), Embase (1974 to present), and PsycINFO (1967 to present). We cross-checked reference lists of relevant papers and systematic reviews. We did not apply any restrictions on date, language, or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials comparing psychological therapies with pharmacological interventions for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia as diagnosed by operationalised criteria in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved any disagreements in consultation with a third review author. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using standardised mean differences (with 95% CI). We used the random-effects model throughout. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies with a total of 966 participants in the present review. Eight of the studies were conducted in Europe, four in the USA, two in the Middle East, and one in Southeast Asia.None of the studies reported long-term remission/response (long term being six months or longer from treatment commencement).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17; 6 studies; 334 participants) or short-term response (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.86; 5 studies; 277 participants) (very low-quality evidence), and no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and SSRIs in treatment acceptability as measured using dropouts for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.22; 6 studies; 334 participants; low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and tricyclic antidepressants in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.09; 3 studies; 229 participants), short-term response (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.10; 4 studies; 270 participants), or dropouts for any reason (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30; 5 studies; 430 participants) (low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and other antidepressants in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.67; 3 studies; 135 participants; very low-quality evidence) and evidence that psychological therapies did not significantly increase or decrease the short-term response over other antidepressants (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37; 3 studies; 128 participants) or dropouts for any reason (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.65; 3 studies; 180 participants) (low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and benzodiazepines in terms of short-term remission (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.65; 3 studies; 95 participants), short-term response (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.58; 2 studies; 69 participants), or dropouts for any reason (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.36; 3 studies; 116 participants) (very low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and either antidepressant alone or antidepressants plus benzodiazepines in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05; 11 studies; 663 participants) and short-term response (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 12 studies; 800 participants) (low-quality evidence), and there was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and either antidepressants alone or antidepressants plus benzodiazepines in terms of treatment acceptability as measured by dropouts for any reason (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.51; 13 studies; 909 participants; very low-quality evidence). The risk of selection bias and reporting bias was largely unclear. Preplanned subgroup and sensitivity analyses limited to trials with longer-term, quality-controlled, or individual psychological therapies suggested that antidepressants might be more effective than psychological therapies for some outcomes.There were no data to contribute to a comparison between psychological therapies and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and subsequent adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence in this review was often imprecise. The superiority of either therapy over the other is uncertain due to the low and very low quality of the evidence with regard to short-term efficacy and treatment acceptability, and no data were available regarding adverse effects.The sensitivity analysis and investigation of the sources of heterogeneity indicated three possible influential factors: quality control of psychological therapies, the length of intervention, and the individual modality of psychological therapies.Future studies should examine the long-term effects after intervention or treatment continuation and should provide information on risk of bias, especially with regard to selection and reporting biases.

Replication and contradiction of highly cited research papers in psychiatry: 10-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Contradictions and initial overestimates are not unusual among highly cited studies. However, this issue has not been researched in psychiatry. Aims: To assess how highly cited studies in psychiatry are replicated by subsequent studies. METHOD: We selected highly cited studies claiming effective psychiatric treatments in the years 2000 through 2002. For each of these studies we searched for subsequent studies with a better-controlled design, or with a similar design but a larger sample. RESULTS: Among 83 articles recommending effective interventions, 40 had not been subject to any attempt at replication, 16 were contradicted, 11 were found to have substantially smaller effects and only 16 were replicated. The standardised mean differences of the initial studies were overestimated by 132%. Studies with a total sample size of 100 or more tended to produce replicable results. CONCLUSIONS: Caution is needed when a study with a small sample size reports a large effect.

Which is more generalizable, powerful and interpretable in meta-analyses, mean difference or standardized mean difference?

BACKGROUND: To examine empirically whether the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) is more generalizable and statistically powerful in meta-analyses of continuous outcomes when the same unit is used. METHODS: From all the Cochrane Database (March 2013), we identified systematic reviews that combined 3 or more randomised controlled trials (RCT) using the same continuous outcome. Generalizability was assessed using the I-squared (I2) and the percentage agreement. The percentage agreement was calculated by comparing the MD or SMD of each RCT with the corresponding MD or SMD from the meta-analysis of all the other RCTs. The statistical power was estimated using Z-scores. Meta-analyses were conducted using both random-effects and fixed-effect models. RESULTS: 1068 meta-analyses were included. The I2 index was significantly smaller for the SMD than for the MD (P < 0.0001, sign test). For continuous outcomes, the current Cochrane reviews pooled some extremely heterogeneous results. When all these or less heterogeneous subsets of the reviews were examined, the SMD always showed a greater percentage agreement than the MD. When the I2 index was less than 30%, the percentage agreement was 55.3% for MD and 59.8% for SMD in the random-effects model and 53.0% and 59.8%, respectively, in the fixed effect model (both P < 0.0001, sign test). Although the Z-scores were larger for MD than for SMD, there were no differences in the percentage of statistical significance between MD and SMD in either model. CONCLUSIONS: The SMD was more generalizable than the MD. The MD had a greater statistical power than the SMD but did not result in material differences.

Azapirones versus placebo for panic disorder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Panic disorder is common in the general population. It is often associated with other psychiatric disorders, such as drug dependence, major depression, bipolar disorder, social phobia, specific phobia and generalised anxiety disorder. Azapirones are a class of drugs used as anxiolytics. They are associated with less drowsiness, psychomotor impairment, alcohol potentiation and potential for addiction or abuse than benzodiazepines. However, azapirones are not widely used in the treatment of panic disorder and evidence for their efficacy is unclear. It is important to find out if azapirones are effective and acceptable in the treatment of panic disorder. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of azapirones on panic disorder in adults, specifically:1. to determine the efficacy of azapirones in alleviating symptoms of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in comparison with placebo;2. to review the acceptability of azapirones in panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in comparison with placebo; and3. to investigate adverse effects of azapirones in panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, including general prevalence of adverse effects, compared with placebo. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group Trials Specialised Register (CCDANCTR, search date: 10th January 2014), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950-), EMBASE (1974-), and PsycINFO (1967-). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared azapirones with placebo for panic disorder in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently identified studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies involving 170 participants compared the azapirone buspirone with placebo. No study provided enough usable information on our primary efficacy outcome (response). For our primary acceptability outcome, moderate-quality evidence indicated that azapirones had lower acceptability than placebo: risk ratio (RR) for dropouts for any reason 2.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 4.07; 3 studies, 170 participants. Evidence for secondary efficacy outcomes were of low quality. Results on efficacy between azapirone and placebo in terms of agoraphobia (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.53; 1 study, 52 participants), general anxiety (mean difference (MD) -2.20, 95% CI -5.45 to 1.06; 2 studies, 115 participants) and depression (MD -1.80, 95% CI -5.60 to 2.00; 1 study, 52 participants) were uncertain. None of the studies provided information for the assessment of allocation concealment or sequence generation. Conflicts of interest were not explicitly expressed. The risk of attrition bias was rated high for all three studies. Information on adverse effects other than dropouts for any reason was insufficient to include in the analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of azapirones is uncertain due to the lack of meta-analysable data for the primary outcome and low-quality evidence for secondary efficacy outcomes. A small amount of moderate-quality evidence suggested that the acceptability of azapirones for panic disorder was lower than for placebo. However, only trials of one azapirone (namely buspirone) were included in this review; this, combined with the small sample size, limits our conclusions. If further research is to be conducted, studies with larger sample sizes, with different azapirones and with less risk of bias are necessary to draw firm conclusions regarding azapirones for panic disorder.