What are the effects of preventative interventions on major depressive disorder (MDD) in young adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a prevalent disorder with a peak rate of onset in young adulthood from 18 to 25 years. To date, no review has systematically assessed the effectiveness of programs that aim to reduce depressive symptoms or diagnosis of depression in young adults. METHOD: A systematic search was performed in Cochrane, PubMed, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of the randomized controlled studies that compared an intervention for young adults (aged 18-25) without a diagnosis or history of depression and a control condition. Comparisons between intervention and control group outcomes were carried out at the post-intervention time point. We also compared intervention and control group outcomes at later follow-up time points where data were available. RESULTS: Twenty-six randomized controlled trials among 2865 young adults were included in the analysis. The pooled effect size of the interventions versus control at post-intervention was g?=?0.37 (95% CI: 0.28-0.47, NNT?=?9) and heterogeneity was moderate I2?=?36 (95% CI: 11-64). There were no significant effects in terms of the type of delivery, focus of study, type of control, or type of support within the interventions. LIMITATIONS: The authors were unable to assess the effects of interventions on the onset of depression as none of the included studies measured incidence. The risk of bias was high in most studies (81%). Only one study included a follow-up of more than a year. Demographic factors were inconsistently reported in the included articles. CONCLUSION: While it was not possible to investigate the effects of interventions on depression incidence, some evidence was found for the effectiveness of preventative interventions in reducing depressive symptoms in young adults. Future research should address limitations of the current evidence base to allow stronger conclusions to be drawn

The effects of blinding on the outcomes of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression: A meta-analysis.

Background: Randomized trials with antidepressants are often run under double blind placebo-controlled conditions, whereas those with psychotherapies are mostly unblinded. This can introduce bias in favor of psychotherapy when the treatments are directly compared. In this meta-analysis, we examine this potential source of bias

Which psychotherapy is effective in panic disorder? And which delivery formats are supported by the evidence? Study protocol for two systematic reviews and network meta-analyses

Introduction Panic disorder is among the most prevalent anxiety diseases. Although psychotherapy is recommended as first-line treatment for panic disorder, little is known about the relative efficacy of different types of psychotherapies. Moreover, there is little evidence concerning the effectiveness of different formats of major psychotherapeutic types, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). In this protocol, we present an overarching project consisting of two systematic reviews and network meta-analyses (NMA) to shed light on which psychotherapy (NMA-1), and specifically, which CBT delivery format (NMA-2) should be considered most effective for adults suffering from panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Methods and analyses Starting from a common pool of data, we will conduct two systematic reviews and NMA of randomised controlled trials examining panic disorder. A comprehensive search will be performed in electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL from database inception to 1 January 2021 to identify relevant studies. A systematic approach to searching, screening, reviewing and data extraction will be applied. Titles, abstract and - whenever necessary - full texts will be examined independently by at least two reviewers. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool V.2. The primary efficacy outcome will be anxiety symptoms at study endpoint. The primary acceptability outcome will be all-cause discontinuation, as measured by the proportion of patients who had discontinued treatment for any reason at endpoint. Data will be pooled using a random-effects model. Pairwise and NMA will be conducted. Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval is necessary for these two studies, as there will be no collection of primary data. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences and meetings

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

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of psychological relapse prevention interventions versus control for patients in remission from depression: A protocol

This is the final version. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.Psychological interventions and antidepressant medication can be effective interventions to prevent depressive relapse for patients currently in remission of depression. Less is known about overall factors that predict or moderate treatment response for patients receiving a psychological intervention for recurrent depression. This is a protocol for an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis which aims to assess predictors and moderators of relapse or recurrence for patients currently in remission from depression. Methods and analysis Searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were completed on 13 October 2019. Study extractions and risk of bias assessments have been completed. Study authors will be asked to contribute IPD. Standard aggregate meta-analysis and IPD analysis will be conducted, and the outcomes will be compared with assess whether results differ between studies supplying data and those that did not. IPD files of individual data will be merged and variables homogenised where possible for consistency. IPD will be analysed via Cox regression and one and two-stage analyses will be conducted. Ethics and dissemination The results will be published in peer review journals and shared in a policy briefing as well as accessible formats and shared with a range of stakeholders. The results will inform patients and clinicians and researchers about our current understanding of more personalised ways to prevent a depressive relapse. No local ethics approval was necessary following consultation with the legal department. Guidance on patient data storage and management will be adhered to. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019127844.Amsterdam Public Health Institute Collaborativ