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.

Psychological and social interventions for the promotion of mental health in people living in low- and middle-income countries affected by humanitarian crises.

BACKGROUND: Because of wars, conflicts, persecutions, human rights violations, and humanitarian crises, about 84 million people are forcibly displaced around the world; the great majority of them live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). People living in humanitarian settings are affected by a constellation of stressors that threaten their mental health. Psychosocial interventions for people affected by humanitarian crises may be helpful to promote positive aspects of mental health, such as mental well-being, psychosocial functioning, coping, and quality of life. Previous reviews have focused on treatment and mixed promotion and prevention interventions. In this review, we focused on promotion of positive aspects of mental health. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions aimed at promoting mental health versus control conditions (no intervention, intervention as usual, or waiting list) in people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases to January 2023. We also searched the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing studies, and checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions versus control conditions (no intervention, intervention as usual, or waiting list) to promote positive aspects of mental health in adults and children living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. We excluded studies that enrolled participants based on a positive diagnosis of mental disorder (or based on a proxy of scoring above a cut-off score on a screening measure). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were mental well-being, functioning, quality of life, resilience, coping, hope, and prosocial behaviour. The secondary outcome was acceptability, defined as the number of participants who dropped out of the trial for any reason. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the outcomes of mental well-being, functioning, and prosocial behaviour. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs with 7917 participants. Nine RCTs were conducted on children/adolescents, and four on adults. All included interventions were delivered to groups of participants, mainly by paraprofessionals. Paraprofessional is defined as an individual who is not a mental or behavioural health service professional, but works at the first stage of contact with people who are seeking mental health care. Four RCTs were carried out in Lebanon; two in India; and single RCTs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Jordan, Haiti, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the occupied Palestinian Territories (oPT), Nepal, and Tanzania. The mean study duration was 18 weeks (minimum 10, maximum 32 weeks). Trials were generally funded by grants from academic institutions or non-governmental organisations. For children and adolescents, there was no clear difference between psychosocial interventions and control conditions in improving mental well-being and prosocial behaviour at study endpoint (mental well-being: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.29; 3 RCTs, 3378 participants; very low-certainty evidence; prosocial behaviour: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.10; 5 RCTs, 1633 participants; low-certainty evidence), or at medium-term follow-up (mental well-being: mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.99; 1 RCT, 258 participants; prosocial behaviour: SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.80 to 0.83; 2 RCT, 483 participants; both very low-certainty evidence). Interventions may improve functioning (MD -2.18, 95% CI -3.86 to -0.50; 1 RCT, 183 participants), with sustained effects at follow-up (MD -3.33, 95% CI -5.03 to -1.63; 1 RCT, 183 participants), but evidence is very uncertain as the data came from one RCT (both very low-certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions may improve mental well-being slightly in adults at study endpoint (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.14; 3 RCTs, 674 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they may have little to no effect at follow-up, as the evidence is uncertain and future RCTs might either confirm or disprove this finding. No RCTs measured the outcomes of functioning and prosocial behaviour in adults. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To date, there is scant and inconclusive randomised evidence on the potential benefits of psychological and social interventions to promote mental health in people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. Confidence in the findings is hampered by the scarcity of studies included in the review, the small number of participants analysed, the risk of bias in the studies, and the substantial level of heterogeneity. Evidence on the efficacy of interventions on positive mental health outcomes is too scant to determine firm practice and policy implications. This review has identified a large gap between what is known and what still needs to be addressed in the research area of mental health promotion in humanitarian settings.

Mental health during the Covid-19 pandemic: An international comparison of gender-related home and work-related responsibilities, and social support.

PURPOSE  : To assess gender differences in COVID-19 related changes in home and work responsibilities longitudinally, and determine whether these differences, together with other potential risk and protective factors, are associated with depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology. METHOD: Symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD were measured using an online survey instrument, between May 2020 and April 2021, in four waves completed at 3-monthly intervals. Analyses were based on data from the COvid MEntal healTh (COMET) survey which investigated the mental health effects of the COVID-19 outbreak spanning 13 countries on five continents in N = 7,909 participants. RESULTS: From the first to the last wave, women reported a greater increase in home and work responsibilities, and had higher depression, anxiety and PTSD scores compared to men. Women who reported a reduction in income due to the pandemic had higher depression scores. Working harder and experiencing a reduction in income were also associated with higher anxiety scores in women but not in men. Women were more likely to score above the cut-off for depression (32.5% vs 23.6%, p < .001), anxiety (21.2% vs 14.4%, p < .001) and PTSD (21.2% vs 14.4%, p < .001) than men during the first wave. Stronger reliance on socially supported coping mechanisms was a risk factor for depression, anxiety and PTSD in men and women. CONCLUSION: Women were more likely to report mental health problems which may be related to the gender disproportionate increase in home and work responsibilities but not necessarily due to COVID-19 stressors.

Two decades of digital interventions for anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions for anxiety disorders are a promising solution to address barriers to evidence-based treatment access. Precise and powerful estimates of digital intervention effectiveness for anxiety disorders are necessary for further adoption in practice. The present systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of digital interventions across all anxiety disorders and specific to each disorder v. wait-list and care-as-usual controls. METHODS: A systematic search of bibliographic databases identified 15 030 abstracts from inception to 1 January 2020. Forty-seven randomized controlled trials (53 comparisons; 4958 participants) contributed to the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted by an anxiety disorder, risk of bias, treatment support, recruitment, location and treatment adherence. RESULTS: A large, pooled effect size of g = 0.80 [95% Confidence Interval: 0.68-0.93] was found in favor of digital interventions. Moderate to large pooled effect sizes favoring digital interventions were found for generalized anxiety disorder (g = 0.62), mixed anxiety samples (g = 0.68), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (g = 1.08) and social anxiety disorder (g = 0.76) subgroups. No subgroups were significantly different or related to the pooled effect size. Notably, the effects of guided interventions (g = 0.84) and unguided interventions (g = 0.64) were not significantly different. Supplemental analysis comparing digital and face-to-face interventions (9 comparisons; 683 participants) found no significant difference in effect [g = 0.14 favoring digital interventions; Confidence Interval: -0.01 to 0.30]. CONCLUSION: The precise and powerful estimates found further justify the application of digital interventions for anxiety disorders in place of wait-list or usual care.

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.

Primary-level and community worker interventions for the prevention of mental disorders and the promotion of well-being in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: There is a significant research gap in the field of universal, selective, and indicated prevention interventions for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental disorders. Barriers to closing the research gap include scarcity of skilled human resources, large inequities in resource distribution and utilization, and stigma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of delivery by primary workers of interventions for the promotion of mental health and universal prevention, and for the selective and indicated prevention of mental disorders or symptoms of mental illness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To examine the impact of intervention delivery by primary workers on resource use and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, PsycInfo, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 29 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary-level and/or community health worker interventions for promoting mental health and/or preventing mental disorders versus any control conditions in adults and children in LMICs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were used for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analyzed data at 0 to 1, 1 to 6, and 7 to 24 months post-intervention. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥ 0.80 large clinical effects. We evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB2. MAIN RESULTS: Description of studies We identified 113 studies with 32,992 participants (97 RCTs, 19,570 participants in meta-analyses) for inclusion. Nineteen RCTs were conducted in low-income countries, 27 in low-middle-income countries, 2 in middle-income countries, 58 in upper-middle-income countries and 7 in mixed settings. Eighty-three RCTs included adults and 30 RCTs included children. Cadres of primary-level workers employed primary care health workers (38 studies), community workers (71 studies), both (2 studies), and not reported (2 studies). Interventions were universal prevention/promotion in 22 studies, selective in 36, and indicated prevention in 55 RCTs. Risk of bias The most common concerns over risk of bias were performance bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. Intervention effects 'Probably', 'may', or 'uncertain' indicates 'moderate-', 'low-', or 'very low-'certainty evidence. *Certainty of the evidence (using GRADE) was assessed at 0 to 1 month post-intervention as specified in the review protocol. In the abstract, we did not report results for outcomes for which evidence was missing or very uncertain. Adults Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced anxiety symptoms (MD -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.01; 1 trial, 158 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.08; 4 trials, 722 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.30; 4 trials, 223 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 547 participants) - probably slightly reduced functional impairment (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; 4 trials, 663 participants) Children Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - may improve the quality of life (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.11; 2 trials, 803 participants) - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 694 participants) - may slightly reduce depressive symptoms (MD -3.04, 95% CI -6 to -0.08; 1 trial, 160 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.41; 1 trial, 183 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD 0, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.15; 2 trials, 638 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD 4.50, 95% CI -12.05 to 21.05; 1 trial, 28 participants) - probably slightly reduced distress/PTSD symptoms (MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.77 to -0.51; 1 trial, 159 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - decreased slightly functional impairment (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10; 2 trials, 448 participants) - decreased slightly depressive symptoms (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.04; 4 trials, 771 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.76; 2 trials, 448 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicated that prevention interventions delivered through primary workers - a form of task-shifting - may improve mental health outcomes. Certainty in the evidence was influenced by the risk of bias and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. A supportive network of infrastructure and research would enhance and reinforce this delivery modality across LMICs.

Exercise for Depressive Symptoms in Parkinson Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of physical exercise in improving depressive symptoms in Parkinson disease (PD). DATA SOURCE AND STUDY SELECTION: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) following a prespecified protocol guidance (PROSPERO CRD42021243142). Two independent authors searched for studies in MEDLINE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Embase, PsycINFO, and Sports Discus from database inception to June 2022. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent authors extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 36 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, 14 of which were pooled in the quantitative synthesis. Depression symptomatology significantly decreased in the exercise group compared with usual care (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.74 to -0.24; very low quality of evidence; 14 RCTs; 961 participants). Physical exercise also improved patients' quality of life (SMD, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.21; 7 RCTs; 485 participants). As for acceptability, we did not find any difference between exercise and usual care (relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.05; 12 RCTs; 1048 participants). We judged all the studies except 2 to be at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Results from our systematic review identify physical activity as a viable option to reduce depressive symptoms in PD. Future clinical practice guidelines should consider physical exercise in their recommendations for depression symptomatology reduction in people with PD.

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.

Resilience of people with chronic medical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a 1-year longitudinal prospective survey.

BACKGROUNDS: Individuals with chronic medical conditions are considered highly exposed to COVID-19 pandemic stress, but emerging evidence is demonstrating that resilience is common even among them. We aimed at identifying sustained resilient outcomes and their predictors in chronically ill people during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: This international 4-wave 1-year longitudinal online survey included items on socio-demographic characteristics, economic and living situation, lifestyle and habits, pandemic-related issues, and history of mental disorders. Adherence to and approval of imposed restrictions, trust in governments and in scientific community during the pandemic were also investigated. The following tools were administered: the Patient Health Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, the PTSD Checklist DSM-5, the Oslo Social Support Scale, the Padua Inventory, and the Portrait Values Questionnaire. RESULTS: One thousand fifty-two individuals reporting a chronic condition out of 8011 total participants from 13 countries were included in the study, and 965 had data available for the final model. The estimated probability of being "sustained-resilient" was 34%. Older male individuals, participants employed before and during the pandemic or with perceived social support were more likely to belong to the sustained-resilience group. Loneliness, a previous mental disorder, high hedonism, fear of COVID-19 contamination, concern for the health of loved ones, and non-approving pandemic restrictions were predictors of not-resilient outcomes in our sample. CONCLUSIONS: We found similarities and differences from established predictors of resilience and identified some new ones specific to pandemics. Further investigation is warranted and could inform the design of resilience-building interventions in people with chronic diseases.

Care-as-usual control groups across different settings in randomized trials on psychotherapy for adult depression: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Care-as-usual (CAU) is often used as a control condition in psychotherapy research, but it may vary considerably what that entails, ranging from no treatment, to routine treatment in primary care, general medical care, perinatal care, and specialized mental health care. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of trials comparing psychotherapy for depression to CAU, with a focus on the different categories of CAU and countries where the studies were conducted. We used an existing database of randomized trials on psychotherapy for depression that is updated every year. RESULTS: A total of 140 studies with 15 419 patients were included. We found no significant differences in effects between categories of CAU (effect sizes ranging from g = 0.43 for CAU in primary care to g = 0.73 for no treatment), but heterogeneity was high in all CAU categories. After stratifying effects across specific countries (within CAU categories) we found that heterogeneity was considerably lower and there were several significant differences between countries. Overall, effects were larger in non-Western countries (g = 0.84 to 1.28) compared to those in Western countries (g = 0.52; p for difference = 0.002). Effects were smaller in studies with risk of bias (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There are no significant differences between major categories of CAU when compared to psychotherapy conditions in randomized trials. However, effects of psychotherapy differ considerably across CAU conditions in specific countries. CAU therefore is a heterogeneous control condition in psychotherapy research.

Effectiveness of Self-Help Plus in Preventing Mental Disorders in Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Western Europe: A Multinational Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Self-Help Plus (SH+) is a group-based psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization for managing stress. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of SH+ in preventing mental disorders in refugees and asylum seekers in Western Europe. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 5 European countries. Refugees and asylum seekers with psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire score ≥3), but without a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) or ICD/10 diagnosis of mental disorder, as assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), were randomized to SH+ or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). The primary outcome was the frequency of mental disorders with the MINI at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of mental disorders at postintervention, self-identified problems, psychological symptoms, and other outcomes. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-nine individuals were randomly assigned to SH+ or ETAU. For the primary outcome, we found no difference in the frequency of mental disorders at 6 months (Cramer V = 0.007, p = 0.90, RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.52-1.78), while the difference significantly favored SH+ at after the intervention (secondary outcome, measured within 2 weeks from the last session; Cramer V = 0.13, p = 0.01, RR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized indicated prevention study with the aim of preventing the onset of mental disorders in asylum seekers and refugees in Western Europe. As a prevention effect of SH+ was not observed at 6 months, but rather after the intervention only, modalities to maintain its beneficial effect in the long term need to be identified.

Correction to: Safety of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19: evidence review and practical recommendations.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Safety of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19: evidence review and practical recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus pandemic calls for a rapid adaptation of conventional medical practices to meet the evolving needs of such vulnerable patients. People with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may frequently require treatment with psychotropic medications, but are at the same time at higher risk for safety issues because of the complex underlying medical condition and the potential interaction with medical treatments. METHODS: In order to produce evidence-based practical recommendations on the optimal management of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19, an international, multi-disciplinary working group was established. The methodology of the WHO Rapid Advice Guidelines in the context of a public health emergency and the principles of the AGREE statement were followed. Available evidence informing on the risk of respiratory, cardiovascular, infective, hemostatic, and consciousness alterations related to the use of psychotropic medications, and drug-drug interactions between psychotropic and medical treatments used in people with COVID-19, was reviewed and discussed by the working group. RESULTS: All classes of psychotropic medications showed potentially relevant safety risks for people with COVID-19. A set of practical recommendations was drawn in order to inform frontline clinicians on the assessment of the anticipated risk of psychotropic-related unfavorable events, and the possible actions to take in order to effectively manage this risk, such as when it is appropriate to avoid, withdraw, switch, or adjust the dose of the medication. CONCLUSIONS: The present evidence-based recommendations will improve the quality of psychiatric care in people with COVID-19, allowing an appropriate management of the medical condition without worsening the psychiatric condition and vice versa.

Mediators of focused psychosocial support interventions for children in low-resource humanitarian settings: analysis from an Individual Participant Dataset with 3,143 participants.

BACKGROUND: Research on psychosocial interventions has been focused on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions on mental health outcomes, without exploring how interventions achieve beneficial effects. Identifying the potential pathways through which interventions work would potentially allow further strengthening of interventions by emphasizing specific components connected with such pathways. METHODS: We conducted a preplanned mediation analysis using individual participant data from a dataset of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared focused psychosocial support interventions versus control conditions for children living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) affected by humanitarian crises. Based on an ecological resilience framework, we hypothesized that (a) coping, (b) hope, (c) social support, and (d) functional impairment mediate the relationship between intervention and outcome PTSD symptoms. A systematic search on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PubMed, PyscARTICLES, Web of Science, and the main local LMICs databases was conducted up to August 2018. The hypotheses were tested by using individual participant data obtained from study authors of all the studies included in the systematic review. RESULTS: We included 3,143 children from 11 studies (100% of data from included studies), of which 1,877 from six studies contributed to the mediation analysis. Functional impairment was the strongest mediator for focused psychosocial interventions on PTSD (mediation coefficient -0.087, standard error 0.040). The estimated proportion of effect mediated by functional impairment, and adjusted for confounders, was 31%. CONCLUSIONS: Findings did not support the proposed mediation hypotheses for coping, hope, and social support. The mediation through functional impairment may represent unmeasured proxy measures or point to a broader mechanism that impacts self-efficacy and agency.

Introduction and methods of the evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of autism spectrum disorder by the Italian National Institute of Health.

BACKGROUND: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neuro-developmental disorder that affects communication and behavior with a prevalence of approximately 1% worldwide. Health outcomes of interventions for ASD are largely Participant Reported Outcomes (PROs). Specific guidelines can help support the best care for people with ASD to optimize these health outcomes but they have to adhere to standards for their development to be trustworthy. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this article is to describe the new methodological standards of the Italian National Institute of Health and novel aspects of this guideline development process. This article will serve as a reference standard for future guideline development in the Italian setting. METHODS: We applied the new standards of the Italian National Institute of Health to the two guidelines on diagnosis and management of children/adolescents and adults with ASD, with a focus on the scoping, panel composition, management of conflict of interest, generation and prioritization of research questions, early stakeholders' involvement, and PROs. Recommendations are based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. RESULTS: Following a public application process, the ISS established two multidisciplinary panels including people with ASD and/or their caregivers. Seventy-nine research questions were identified as potentially relevant for the guideline on children and adolescents with ASD and 31 for the one on adults with ASD. Questions deemed to have the highest priority were selected for inclusion in the guidelines. Other stakeholders valued their early involvement in the process which will largely focus on PROs. The panels then successfully piloted the development of recommendations using the methodological standards and process set by the ISS with a focus on PROs. CONCLUSIONS: In this article, we describe the development of practice guidelines that focus on PROs for the diagnosis and management of ASD based on novel methods for question prioritization and stakeholder involvement. The recommendations allow for the adoption or adaptation to international settings.

Psychological and social interventions for the prevention of mental disorders in people living in low- and middle-income countries affected by humanitarian crises.

BACKGROUND: People living in 'humanitarian settings' in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are exposed to a constellation of physical and psychological stressors that make them vulnerable to developing mental disorders. A range of psychological and social interventions have been implemented with the aim to prevent the onset of mental disorders and/or lower psychological distress in populations at risk, and it is not known whether interventions are effective. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and acceptability of psychological and social interventions versus control conditions (wait list, treatment as usual, attention placebo, psychological placebo, or no treatment) aimed at preventing the onset of non-psychotic mental disorders in people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMD-CTR), the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), and ProQuest PILOTS database with results incorporated from searches to February 2020. We also searched the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological and social interventions versus control conditions to prevent the onset of mental disorders in adults and children living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. We excluded studies that enrolled participants based on a positive diagnosis of mental disorder (or based on a proxy of scoring above a cut-off score on a screening measure). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We calculated standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analysed data at endpoint (zero to four weeks after therapy) and at medium term (one to four months after intervention). No data were available at long term (six months or longer). We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: In the present review we included seven RCTs with a total of 2398 participants, coming from both children/adolescents (five RCTs), and adults (two RCTs). Together, the seven RCTs compared six different psychosocial interventions against a control comparator (waiting list in all studies). All the interventions were delivered by paraprofessionals and, with the exception of one study, delivered at a group level. None of the included studies provided data on the efficacy of interventions to prevent the onset of mental disorders (incidence). For the primary outcome of acceptability, there may be no evidence of a difference between psychological and social interventions and control at endpoint for children and adolescents (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10; 5 studies, 1372 participants; low-quality evidence) or adults (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.50; 2 studies, 767 participants; very low quality evidence). No information on adverse events related to the interventions was available. For children's and adolescents' secondary outcomes of prevention interventions, there may be no evidence of a difference between psychological and social intervention groups and control groups for reducing PTSD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.18; 3 studies, 590 participants; very low quality evidence), depressive symptoms (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.31; 4 RCTs, 746 participants; very low quality evidence) and anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.31; 3 studies, 632 participants; very low quality evidence) at study endpoint. In adults' secondary outcomes of prevention interventions, psychological counselling may be effective for reducing depressive symptoms (MD -7.50, 95% CI -9.19 to -5.81; 1 study, 258 participants; very low quality evidence) and anxiety symptoms (MD -6.10, 95% CI -7.57 to -4.63; 1 study, 258 participants; very low quality evidence) at endpoint. No data were available for PTSD symptoms in the adult population. Owing to the small number of RCTs included in the present review, it was not possible to carry out neither sensitivity nor subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Of the seven prevention studies included in this review, none assessed whether prevention interventions reduced the incidence of mental disorders and there may be no evidence for any differences in acceptability. Additionally, for both child and adolescent populations and adult populations, a very small number of RCTs with low quality evidence on the review's secondary outcomes (changes in symptomatology at endpoint) did not suggest any beneficial effect for the studied prevention interventions. Confidence in the findings is hampered by the scarcity of prevention studies eligible for inclusion in the review, by risk of bias in the studies, and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. Moreover, it is possible that random error had a role in distorting results, and that a more thorough picture of the efficacy of prevention interventions will be provided by future studies. For this reason, prevention studies are urgently needed to assess the impact of interventions on the incidence of mental disorders in children and adults, with extended periods of follow-up.

Psychological therapies for the treatment of mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries affected by humanitarian crises.

BACKGROUND: People living in humanitarian settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are exposed to a constellation of stressors that make them vulnerable to developing mental disorders. Mental disorders with a higher prevalence in these settings include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive, anxiety, somatoform (e.g. medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS)), and related disorders. A range of psychological therapies are used to manage symptoms of mental disorders in this population. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of psychological therapies versus control conditions (wait list, treatment as usual, attention placebo, psychological placebo, or no treatment) aimed at treating people with mental disorders (PTSD and major depressive, anxiety, somatoform, and related disorders) living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), and PsycINFO (OVID), with results incorporated from searches to 3 February 2016. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify any unpublished or ongoing studies. We checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological therapies versus control conditions (including no treatment, usual care, wait list, attention placebo, and psychological placebo) to treat adults and children with mental disorders living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane procedures for collecting data and evaluating risk of bias. We calculated standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analysed data at endpoint (zero to four weeks after therapy); at medium term (one to four months after therapy); and at long term (six months or longer). GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of evidence for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and withdrawal outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 studies (33 RCTs) with a total of 3523 participants. Included studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, and Asia. Studies were implemented in response to armed conflicts; disasters triggered by natural hazards; and other types of humanitarian crises. Together, the 33 RCTs compared eight psychological treatments against a control comparator.Four studies included children and adolescents between 5 and 18 years of age. Three studies included mixed populations (two studies included participants between 12 and 25 years of age, and one study included participants between 16 and 65 years of age). Remaining studies included adult populations (18 years of age or older).Included trials compared a psychological therapy versus a control intervention (wait list in most studies; no treatment; treatment as usual). Psychological therapies were categorised mainly as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in 23 comparisons (including seven comparisons focused on narrative exposure therapy (NET), two focused on common elements treatment approach (CETA), and one focused on brief behavioural activation treatment (BA)); eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) in two comparisons; interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) in three comparisons; thought field therapy (TFT) in three comparisons; and trauma or general supportive counselling in two comparisons. Although interventions were described under these categories, several psychotherapeutic elements were common to a range of therapies (i.e. psychoeducation, coping skills).In adults, psychological therapies may substantially reduce endpoint PTSD symptoms compared to control conditions (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.34 to -0.79; 1272 participants; 16 studies; low-quality evidence). The effect is smaller at one to four months (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.31; 1660 participants; 18 studies) and at six months (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.14; 400 participants; five studies). Psychological therapies may also substantially reduce endpoint depression symptoms compared to control conditions (SMD -0.86, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.67; 1254 participants; 14 studies; low-quality evidence). Similar to PTSD symptoms, follow-up data at one to four months showed a smaller effect on depression (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.21; 1386 participants; 16 studies). Psychological therapies may moderately reduce anxiety at endpoint (SMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.49; 694 participants; five studies; low-quality evidence) and at one to four months' follow-up after treatment (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.39; 969 participants; seven studies). Dropout rates are probably similar between study conditions (19.5% with control versus 19.1% with psychological therapy (RR 0.98 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16; 2930 participants; 23 studies, moderate quality evidence)).In children and adolescents, we found very low quality evidence for lower endpoint PTSD symptoms scores in psychotherapy conditions (CBT) compared to control conditions, although the confidence interval is wide (SMD -1.56, 95% CI -3.13 to 0.01; 130 participants; three studies;). No RCTs provided data on major depression or anxiety in children. The effect on withdrawal was uncertain (RR 1.87 95% CI 0.47 to 7.47; 138 participants; 3 studies, low quality evidence).We did not identify any studies that evaluated psychological treatments on (symptoms of) somatoform disorders or MUPS in LMIC humanitarian settings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence that psychological therapies have large or moderate effects in reducing PTSD, depressive, and anxiety symptoms in adults living in humanitarian settings in LMICs. By one to four month and six month follow-up assessments treatment effects were smaller. Fewer trials were focused on children and adolescents and they provide very low quality evidence of a beneficial effect of psychological therapies in reducing PTSD symptoms at endpoint. Confidence in these findings is influenced by the risk of bias in the studies and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. More research evidence is needed, particularly for children and adolescents over longer periods of follow-up.

Paroxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression.

BACKGROUND: Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, these comparative studies provided contrasting findings and systematic reviews of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group, and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to paroxetine alone. The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of paroxetine in comparison with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs and newer or non-conventional agents. OBJECTIVES: 1. To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder.2. To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.3. To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialized Register (CCDANCTR, to 30 September 2012), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies marketing paroxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials allocating participants with major depression to paroxetine versus any other antidepressants (ADs), both conventional (such as TCAs, SSRIs) and newer or non-conventional (such as hypericum). For trials which had a cross-over design, only results from the first randomisation period were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. Data were then entered in RevMan 5.2 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, settings and efficacy, acceptability and tolerability measures. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 115 randomised controlled trials (26,134 participants) were included. In 54 studies paroxetine was compared with older ADs, in 21 studies with another SSRI, and in 40 studies with a newer or non-conventional antidepressant other than SSRIs. For the primary outcome (patients who responded to treatment), paroxetine was more effective than reboxetine at increasing patients who responded early to treatment (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.66, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.87, number needed to treat to provide benefit (NNTb) = 16, 95% CI 10 to 50, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 1375 participants, moderate quality of evidence), and less effective than mirtazapine (OR: 2.39, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.02, NNTb = 8, 95% CI 5 to 14, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 726 participants, moderate quality of evidence). Paroxetine was less effective than citalopram in improving response to treatment (OR: 1.54, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.28, NNTb = 9, 95% CI 5 to 102, at six to 12 weeks, 1 RCT, 406 participants, moderate quality of evidence). We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute (six to 12 weeks), early (one to four weeks), or longer term follow-up (four to six months). Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline, imipramine and older ADs as a class, but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum. Included studies were generally at unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment, and incomplete reporting of outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some possibly clinically meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist, but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings. In terms of response, there was a moderate quality of evidence that citalopram was better than paroxetine in the acute phase (six to 12 weeks), although only one study contributed data. In terms of early response to treatment (one to four weeks) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine. However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point. Even if some differences were identified, the findings from this review are better thought as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be reassuring to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Finally, most of included studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and were sponsored by the drug industry. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind.

Efficacy and acceptability of long-acting antipsychotics in acutely ill individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

To assess the effect of Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics in acutely ill patients, we systematically searched major databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LAIs with other LAIs, oral antipsychotics, or placebo in acutely symptomatic adults with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Data were analyzed with a random-effects network meta-analysis. Co-primary outcomes were efficacy (mean change in psychopathology rating scales) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuations) at study endpoint. Of 25 RCTs, 19 studies tested second-generation LAIs (SGA-LAIs) and six first-generation LAIs (FGA-LAIs). Due to a disconnected network, FGA-LAIs were analyzed separately, with poor data quality. The SGA-LAIs network included 8,418 individuals (males=63%, mean age=39.3 years). All SGA-LAIs outperformed placebo in reducing acute symptoms at study endpoint (median follow-up=13 weeks). They were more acceptable than placebo with the only exception of olanzapine, for which no differences with placebo emerged. Additionally, we distinguished between different LAI formulations of the same antipsychotic to explore potential pharmacokinetic differences. Most formulations outperformed placebo in the very short-term (2 weeks or less), regardless of the need for initial oral supplementation. SGA-LAIs are evidence-based treatments in acutely ill individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Findings support the use of SGA-LAIs to manage psychopathology and improve adherence right from the acute phases of illness.

The efficacy of psychotherapy for social anxiety disorder, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Given the growth in research examining the effects of psychotherapy on social anxiety disorder (SAD), an up-to-date comprehensive meta-analysis in this field is needed. METHODS: We selected studies from a database of randomized trials (RCTs) on psychotherapies for anxiety disorders (last updated search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane (CENTRAL): 1 January 2024) We included RCTs comparing psychotherapy to a control condition for adults with SAD and conducted random effects meta-analyses to examine the efficacy of psychotherapy compared to control conditions at post-treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-six RCTs were included with 5560 participants and 98 comparisons between psychotherapy and control groups. Psychotherapy was effective in reducing SAD symptoms, with a large effect size (g = 0.88; 95 % CI: 0.76 to 1.0; I2 = 74 %; 95 % CI: 69 to 79, NNT = 3.8). Effects remained robust across sensitivity analyses. However, there was evidence for significant risk of bias in the included trials. The multivariable meta-regression indicated significant differences in treatment delivery formats, type of recruitment strategy, target group, and number of sessions. CONCLUSION: Psychotherapy is an effective treatment for SAD, with moderate to large effect sizes across all treatment types and formats. Future research is needed to determine the long-term effects.