Controlling for Drug Dose in Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: A Case Study of the Effect of Antidepressant Dose

To describe a method for quantitatively dealing with drug dose in comparative effectiveness reviews. Second-generation antidepressants are used as an example to illustrate this method, and to determine whether dose influences conclusions on comparative effectiveness

Is group cognitive behaviour therapy for postnatal depression evidence-based practice? A systematic review

Background: There is evidence that psychological therapies including cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) may be effective in reducing postnatal depression (PND) when offered to individuals. In clinical practice, this is also implemented in a group therapy format, which, although not recommended in guidelines, is seen as a cost-effective alternative. To consider the extent to which group methods can be seen as evidence-based, we systematically review and synthesise the evidence for the efficacy of group CBT compared to currently used packages of care for women with PND, and we discuss further factors which may contribute to clinician confidence in implementing an intervention. Methods: Seventeen electronic databases were searched. All full papers were read by two reviewers and a third reviewer was consulted in the event of a disagreement on inclusion. Selected studies were quality assessed, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, were data extracted by two reviewers using a standardised data extraction form and statistically synthesised where appropriate using the fixed-effect inverse-variance method. Results: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses showed group CBT to be effective in reducing depression compared to routine primary care, usual care or waiting list groups. A pooled effect size of d = 0.57 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.80, p < 0.001) was observed at 10–13 weeks post-randomisation, reducing to d = 0.28 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.53, p = 0.025) at 6 months. The non-randomised comparisons against waiting list controls at 10–13 weeks was associated with a larger effect size of d = 0.94 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.47, p < 0.001). However due to the limitations of the available data, such as ill-specified definitions of the CBT component of the group programmes, these results should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions: Although the evidence available is limited, group CBT was shown to be effective. We argue, therefore, that there is sufficient evidence to implement group CBT, conditional upon routinely collected outcomes being benchmarked against those obtained in trials of individual CBT, and with other important factors such as patient preference, clinical experience, and information from the local context taken into account when making the treatment decision

Suicidality in primary care patients who present with sadness and anhedonia: a prospective European study

Background: Sadness and anhedonia (loss of interest in activities) are central symptoms of major depression. However, not all people with these symptoms meet diagnostic criteria for major depression. We aimed to assess the importance of suicidality in the outcomes for primary care patients who present with sadness and anhedonia. Method: Cohort study of 2,599 unselected primary care attenders in six European countries followed up at 6 and 12 months. Results: 1) In patients with sadness and/or anhedonia who were not depressed at entry to the study, suicide plans (OR = 3.05; 95 % CI = 1.50–6.24; p = 0.0022) and suicide attempts (OR = 9.08; 95 % CI = 2.57–32.03; p = 0.0006) were significant predictors of developing new onset depression at 6 or 12 months. 2) In patients with sadness and/or anhedonia who met CIDI criteria for major depression at entry, suicidal ideation (OR = 2.93; 95 % CI = 1.70–5.07; p = 0.0001), suicide plans (OR = 3.70; 95 % CI = 2.08–6.57; p < 0.0001), and suicide attempts (OR = 3.33; 95 % CI = 1.47–7.54; p = 0.0040) were significant predictors of persistent depression at 6 or 12 months. Conclusions: Three questions on suicidality could help primary care professionals to assess such patients more closely without necessarily establishing whether they meet criteria for major depression.This research was funded by a grant from The European Commission, referencePREDICT-QL4-CT2002-00683. We are also grateful for part support in Europe from: the Estonian Scientific Foundation (grant number 5696); the Slovenian Ministry for Research (grant No.4369-1027); the Spanish Ministry of Health (grant FIS references: PI041980, PI041771, PI042450) and the Spanish Network of Primary Care Research, redIAPP (ISCIII-RETICS RD06/0018) and SAMSERAP group; and the UK NHS Research and Development office for providing service support costs in the UK. We are also grateful for the support from the University of Malaga (Spain) and to Carlos García from Loyola Andalucía University (Spain)

Observational studies of depression in primary care: what do we know?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We undertook a systematic review of observational studies of depression in primary care to determine 1) the nature and scope of the published studies 2) the methodological quality of the studies; 3) the identified recovery and risk factors for persistent depression and 3) the treatment and health service use patterns among patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO using combinations of topic and keywords, and Medical Subject Headings in MEDLINE, Headings in CINAHL and descriptors in PsycINFO. Searches were limited to adult populations and articles published in English during 1985–2006.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>40 articles from 17 observational cohort studies were identified, most were undertaken in the US or Europe. Studies varied widely in aims and methods making it difficult to meaningfully compare the results. Methodological limitations were common including: selection bias of patients and physicians; small sample sizes (range 35–108 patients at baseline and 20–59 patients at follow-up); and short follow-up times limiting the extent to which these studies can be used to inform our understanding of recovery and relapse among primary care patients with depression. Risk factors for the persistence of depression identified in this review were: severity and chronicity of the depressive episode, the presence of suicidal thoughts, antidepressant use, poorer self-reported quality of life, lower self-reported social support, experiencing key life events, lower education level and unemployment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Despite the growing interest in depression being managed as a chronic illness, this review identified only 17 observational studies of depression in primary care, most of which have included small sample sizes and been relatively short-term. Future research should be large enough to investigate risk factors for chronicity and relapse, and should be conducted over a longer time frame.</p

Postpartum psychiatric disorders

Pregnancy is a complex and vulnerable period that presents a number of challenges to women, including the development of postpartum psychiatric disorders (PPDs). These disorders can include postpartum depression and anxiety, which are relatively common, and the rare but more severe postpartum psychosis. In addition, other PPDs can include obsessive–compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and eating disorders. The aetiology of PPDs is a complex interaction of psychological, social and biological factors, in addition to genetic and environmental factors. The goals of treating postpartum mental illness are reducing maternal symptoms and supporting maternal–child and family functioning. Women and their families should receive psychoeducation about the illness, including evidence-based discussions about the risks and benefits of each treatment option. Developing effective strategies in global settings that allow the delivery of targeted therapies to women with different clinical phenotypes and severities of PPDs is essential