Prognostic Risk Factors in Randomized Clinical Trials of Face-to-Face and Internet-Based Psychotherapy for Depression

Importance Variables such as severe symptoms, comorbidity, and sociodemographic characteristics (eg, low educational attainment or unemployment) are associated with a poorer prognosis in adults treated for depressive symptoms. The exclusion of patients with a poor prognosis from RCTs is negatively associated with the generalizability of research findings. Objective To compare the prognostic risk factors (PRFs) in patient samples of RCTs of face-to-face therapy (FTF) and internet-based therapy (IBT) for depression. Data Sources PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and reference lists of published meta-analyses were searched from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2021.Study SelectionRCTs that compared FTF (individual or group therapy) and IBT (guided or self-guided interventions) against a control (waitlist or treatment as usual) in adults with symptoms of depression were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were extracted by 2 independent observers. The Cochrane revised risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The study was preregistered with OSF Registries and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the standardized mean difference (Hedges g effect size) in depressive symptoms at treatment termination (assessed with standard patient self-report questionnaires), with a positive standardized mean difference indicating larger improvements in the intervention compared with those in the control group. Meta-regression analyses were adjusted for the type of control group. Three preregistered and 2 exploratory sensitivity analyses were conducted. A prognostic risk index (PROG) was created that calculated the sum of 12 predefined individual indicators, with scores ranging from 0 to 12 and higher scores indicating that a sample comprised patients with poorer prognoses. Results This systematic review and meta-regression analysis identified 105 eligible RCTs that comprised 18 363 patients. In total, 48 studies (46%) examined FTF, and 57 studies (54%) examined IBT. The PROG was significantly higher in the RCTs of FTF than in the RCTs of IBT (FTF: mean [SD], 3.55 [1.75]; median [IQR], 3.5 [2.0-4.5]; IBT: mean [SD], 2.27 [1.66]; median [IQR], 2.0 [1.0-3.5]; z = −3.68, P < .001; Hedges g = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.36-1.15). A random-effects meta-regression analysis found no association of the PROG with the effect size. Sensitivity analyses with outliers excluded and accounting for risk of bias or small-study effects yielded mixed results on the association between the PROG and effect size. Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this systematic review and meta-regression analysis suggest that samples of RCTs of FTF vs IBT differ with regard to PRFs. These findings have implications for the generalizability of the current evidence on IBT for depression. More RCTs of internet-based interventions with clinically representative samples are needed, and the reporting of PRFs must be improved

an interim analysis from the prospective GMMG-MM5 trial

We investigated the impact of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in the MM5 trial of the German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group which compared bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone induction therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Based on data from relapsed myeloma, the route of administration for bortezomib was changed from intravenous to subcutaneous after 314 of 604 patients had been enrolled. We analyzed 598 patients who received at least one dose of trial medication. Adverse events were reported more frequently in patients treated with intravenous bortezomib (intravenous=65%; subcutaneous=56%, P=0.02). Rates of grade 2 or more peripheral neuropathy were higher in patients treated with intravenous bortezomib during the third cycle (intravenous=8%; subcutaneous=2%, P=0.001). Overall response rates were similar in patients treated intravenously or subcutaneously. The presence of International Staging System stage III disease, renal impairment or adverse cytogenetic abnormalities did not have a negative impact on overall response rates in either group. To our knowledge this is the largest study to present data comparing subcutaneous with intravenous bortezomib in newly diagnosed myeloma. We show better tolerance and similar overall response rates for subcutaneous compared to intravenous bortezomib. The clinical trial is registered at eudract.ema.europa.eu as n. 2010-019173-16

Intensity of Treatment as Usual and Its Impact on the Effects of Face-to-Face and Internet-Based Psychotherapy for Depression: A Preregistered Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction: Treatment as usual (TAU) is the most frequently used control group in randomized trials of psychotherapy for depression. Concerns have been raised that the heterogeneity of treatments in TAU leads to biased estimates of psychotherapy efficacy and to an unclear difference between TAU and control groups like waiting list (WL). Objective: We investigated the impact of control group intensity (i.e., amount and degree to which elements of common depression treatments are provided) on the effects of face-to-face and internet-based psychotherapy for depression. Methods: We conducted a preregistered meta-analysis (www.osf.io/4mzyd). We included trials comparing psychotherapy with TAU or WL in patients with symptoms of unipolar depression. Six indicators were used to assess control group intensity. Primary outcome: Standardized mean difference (SMD) of psychotherapy and control in depressive symptoms at treatment termination. Results: We included 89 trials randomizing 14,474 patients to 113 psychotherapy conditions and 89 control groups (TAU in 42 trials, WL in 47 trials). Control group intensity predicted trial results in preregistered (one-sided ps < 0.042) and exploratory analyses. Psychotherapy effects were significantly smaller (one-sided p = 0.002) in trials with higher intensity TAU (SMD = 0.324, CI 0.209 to 0.439) than in trials with lower intensity TAU (SMD = 0.628, CI 0.455 to 0.801). Psychotherapy effects against lower intensity TAU did not differ from effects against WL (two-sided p = 0.663). Conclusions: Our results suggest that variation in TAU intensity impacts the outcome of trials. More scrutiny in the design of control groups for clinical trials is recommended

Reduced Self-Reactivity of an Autoreactive T Cell After Activation with Cross-reactive Non–Self-Ligand

Autoreactive CD4+ T lymphocytes are critical to the induction of autoimmune disease, but because of the degenerate nature of T cell receptor (TCR) activation such receptors also respond to other ligands. Interaction of autoreactive T cells with other non–self-ligands has been shown to activate and expand self-reactive cells and induce autoimmunity. To understand the effect on the autoreactivity of naive cross-reactive T cells of activation with a potent nonself ligand, we have generated a TCR transgenic mouse which expresses a TCR with a broad cross-reactivity to a number of ligands including self-antigen. The activation of naive transgenic recombination activating gene (Rag)2−/− T cells with a potent non–self-ligand did not result in a enhancement of reactivity to self, but made these T cells nonresponsive to the self-ligand and anti-CD3, although they retained a degree of responsiveness to the non–self-ligand. These desensitized cells had many characteristics of anergic T cells. Interleukin (IL)-2 production was selectively reduced compared with interferon (IFN)-γ. p21ras activity was reduced and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) was relatively spared, consistent with known biochemical characteristics of anergy. Surprisingly, calcium fluxes were also affected and the anergic phenotype could not be reversed by exogenous IL-2. Therefore, activation with a hyperstimulating non–self-ligand changes functional specificity of an autoreactive T cell without altering the TCR. This mechanism may preserve the useful reactivity of peripheral T cells to foreign antigen while eliminating responses to self

Human contact in internet-based interventions for depression: A pre-registered replication and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Introduction Internet-based self-help interventions have shown to be effective in the treatment of depression. Several meta-analyses indicated that human contact has a crucial impact on adherence and outcome. While most research focused on the role of guidance during interventions, a review by Andersson and Johansson (2012) suggested that contact before the intervention too may play an important role. Objective We investigated the impact of the degree of contact in internet-based interventions (IBIs) for depression on outcome in adults suffering from elevated symptoms of depression. Methods We conducted a preregistered meta-analysis (www.osf.io/4mzyd) and included trials comparing IBIs for depression against control conditions (treatment as usual [TAU] or waiting list [WL]) in patients with symptoms of unipolar depression searching the databases PsycINFO and Cochrane's Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) limited to entries from EMBASE and PubMed. Following Andersson and Johansson (2012), contact before an intervention was defined as having had a diagnostic interview before the IBI, and contact during intervention was defined as having received guidance during the IBI. IBIs were grouped as providing (0) no contact, (1) contact before the IBI, (2) contact during the IBI, or (3) contact both before and during the IBI. The primary outcome was standardized mean difference (SMD) of the IBI and control in depressive symptoms at treatment termination. Secondary outcomes were study dropout and adherence to the IBI. Results We included 56 eligible trials that randomized 13,335 patients to 75 internet-based intervention conditions and control groups (TAU in 23 trials, WL in 33 trials). In total, 44 trials (78.57 %) were judged to show some concerns or a high risk of bias. Overall heterogeneity was high regarding the primary outcome (I2s < 66 %) and even higher for secondary outcomes (I2s < 91 %). Degree of contact was a robust predictor of outcome and adherence in all pre-registered and exploratory analyses. We found the effect of the IBI to increase with higher degree of contact. However, in pair-wise contrasts, only IBIs offering both contact before and during the intervention (SMD = 0.573, 95 % CI: 0.437, 0.709) significantly outperformed interventions offering no contact (SMD = 0.224, 95 % CI: 0.090, 0.340). Conclusions The results suggest that contact before and during an intervention increases the effects of IBIs. The combination of contact before and during the intervention seems to a pivotal role regarding adherence as well as treatment outcome for patients suffering from depression

The RIPI-f (Reporting Integrity of Psychological Interventions delivered face-to-face) checklist was developed to guide reporting of treatment integrity in face-to-face psychological interventions.

Objectives: Intervention integrity is the degree to which the study intervention is delivered as intended. This article presents the RIPI-f checklist (Reporting Integrity of Psychological Interventions delivered face-to-face) and summarizes its development methods. RIPI-f proposes guidance for reporting intervention integrity in evaluative studies of face-to-face psychological interventions. Study Design and Setting: We followed established procedures for developing reporting guidelines. We examined 56 documents (reporting guidelines, bias tools, and methodological guidance) for relevant aspects of face-to-face psychological intervention integrity. Eighty four items were identified and grouped as per the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) domains. Twenty nine experts from psychology and medicine and other scholars rated the relevance of each item in a single-round Delphi survey.Amultidisciplinary panel of 11 experts discussed the survey results in three online consensus meetings and drafted the final version of the checklist. Results: We propose RIPI-f, a checklist with 50 items. Our checklist enhances TIDieR with important extensions, such as therapeutic alliance, provider’s allegiance, and the adherence of providers and participants. Conclusion: RIPI-f can improve the reporting of face-to-face psychological interventions. The tool can help authors, researchers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers. We suggest using RIPI-f alongside other reporting guidelines.post-print504 K

The RIPI-f (Reporting Integrity of Psychological Interventions delivered face-to-face) checklist was developed to guide reporting of treatment integrity in face-to-face psychological interventions

Objective: Intervention integrity is the degree to which the study intervention is delivered as intended. This article presents the RIPI-f checklist (Reporting Integrity of Psychological Interventions delivered face-to-face) and summarizes its development methods. RIPI-f proposes guidance for reporting intervention integrity in evaluative studies of face-to-face psychological interventions. Study design and setting: We followed established procedures for developing reporting guidelines. We examined 56 documents (reporting guidelines, bias tools, and methodological guidance) for relevant aspects of face-to-face psychological intervention integrity. Eighty-four items were identified and grouped according to the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) domains. Twenty-nine experts from psychology and medicine and other scholars rated the relevance of each item in a single-round Delphi survey. A multidisciplinary panel of 11 experts discussed the survey results in three online consensus meetings and drafted the final version of the checklist. Results: We propose RIPI-f, a checklist with 50 items. Our checklist enhances TIDieR with important extensions, such as therapeutic alliance, provider's allegiance, and the adherence of providers and participants. Conclusion: RIPI-f can improve the reporting of face-to-face psychological interventions. The tool can help authors, researchers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers. We suggest using RIPI-f alongside other reporting guidelines