Association between AIRE gene polymorphism and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies.

Autoimmune regulator (AIRE) is a transcription factor that functions as a novel player in immunological investigations. In the thymus, it has a pivotal role in the negative selection of naive T-cells during central tolerance. Experimental studies have shown that single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) alters transcription of the AIRE gene. SNPs thereby provide a less efficient negative selection, propagate higher survival of autoimmune T-cells, and elevate susceptibility to autoimmune diseases. To date, only rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been analysed by epidemiological investigations in relation to SNPs in AIRE. In our meta-analysis, we sought to encompass case-control studies and confirm that the association between SNP occurrence and RA. After robust searches of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases, we found 19 articles that included five independent studies. Out of 11 polymorphisms, two (rs2075876, rs760426) were common in the five case-control studies. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis for rs2075876 (7145 cases and 8579 controls) and rs760426 (6696 cases and 8164 controls). Our results prove that rs2075876 and rs760426 are significantly associated with an increased risk of RA in allelic, dominant, recessive, codominant heterozygous, and codominant homozygous genetic models. These findings are primarily based on data from Asian populations

"Flogging dead horses": evaluating when have clinical trials achieved sufficiency and stability? A case study in cardiac rehabilitation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most systematic reviews conclude that another clinical trial is needed. Measures of sufficiency and stability may indicate whether this is true.</p> <p>Objectives: To show how evidence accumulated on centre-based versus home-based cardiac rehabilitation, including estimates of sufficiency and stability</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Systematic reviews of clinical trials of home versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation were used to develop a cumulative meta-analysis over time. We calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) in effect, confidence intervals and indicators of sufficiency and stability. Sufficiency refers to whether the meta-analytic database adequately demonstrates that an intervention works - is statistically superior to another. It does this by assessing the number of studies with null results that would be required to make the meta-analytic effect non-statistically significant. Stability refers to whether the direction and size of the effect is stable as new studies are added to the meta-analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The standardised mean effect difference reduced over fourteen comparisons from a non-significant difference favouring home-based cardiac rehabilitation to a very small difference favouring hospital (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.13). This difference did not reach the sufficiency threshold (failsafe ratio 0.039 < 1) but did achieve the criteria for stability (cumulative slope 0.003 < 0.005).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The evidence points to a relatively small effect difference which was stable but not sufficient in terms of the suggested thresholds. Sufficiency should arguably be based on substantive significance and decided by patients. Research on patient preferences should be the priority. Sufficiency and stability measures are useful tools that need to be tested in further case studies.</p

Effect of Chronic Escitalopram versus Placebo on Personality Traits in Healthy First-Degree Relatives of Patients with Depression: A Randomized Trial

The serotonergic neurotransmitter system is closely linked to depression and personality traits. It is not known if selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) have an effect on neuroticism that is independent of their effect on depression. Healthy individuals with a genetic liability for depression represent a group of particular interest when investigating if intervention with SSRIs affects personality. The present trial is the first to test the hypothesis that escitalopram may reduce neuroticism in healthy first-degree relatives of patients with major depressive disorder (MD).The trial used a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled parallel-group design. We examined the effect of four weeks escitalopram 10 mg daily versus matching placebo on personality in 80 people who had a biological parent or sibling with a history of MD. The outcome measure on personality traits was change in self-reported neuroticism scores on the Revised Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPQ) from entry until end of four weeks of intervention.When compared with placebo, escitalopram did not significantly affect self-reported NEO-PI-R and EPQ neuroticism and extroversion, EPQ psychoticism, NEO-PI-R openness, or NEO-PI-R conscientiousness (p all above 0.05). However, escitalopram increased NEO-PI-R agreeableness scores significantly compared with placebo (mean; SD) (2.38; 8.09) versus (-1.32; 7.94), p = 0.046), but not following correction for multiplicity. A trend was shown for increased conscientiousness (p = 0.07). There was no significant effect on subclinical depressive symptoms (p = 0.6).In healthy first-degree relatives of patients with MD, there is no effect of escitalopram on neuroticism, but it is possible that escitalopram may increase the personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00386841

The Effects of Cognitive Therapy versus ‘No Intervention’ for Major Depressive Disorder

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We used The Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder. Participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder to be eligible. Altogether, we included 12 trials randomizing a total of 669 participants. All 12 trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (four trials; mean difference -3.05 (95% confidence interval (Cl), -5.23 to -0.87; P<0.006)) compared with 'no intervention'. Trial sequential analysis could not confirm this result. Meta-analysis on the Beck Depression Inventory showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (eight trials; mean difference on -4.86 (95% CI -6.44 to -3.28; P = 0.00001)). Trial sequential analysis on these data confirmed the result. Only a few trials reported on 'no remission', suicide inclination, suicide attempts, suicides, and adverse events without significant differences between the compared intervention groups. DISCUSSION: Cognitive therapy might be an effective treatment for depression measured on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Beck Depression Inventory, but these outcomes may be overestimated due to risks of systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). Furthermore, the effects of cognitive therapy on no remission, suicidality, adverse events, and quality of life are unclear. There is a need for randomized trials with low risk of bias, low risk of random errors, and longer follow-up assessing both benefits and harms with clinically relevant outcome measures

The effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Cochrane systematic review methodology, with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials, are comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included eight trials randomizing a total of 719 participants. All eight trials had high risk of bias. Four trials reported data on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and four trials reported data on the Beck Depression Inventory. Meta-analysis on the data from the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy compared with 'treatment as usual' significantly reduced depressive symptoms (mean difference -2.15 (95% confidence interval -3.70 to -0.60; P<0.007, no heterogeneity)). However, meta-analysis with both fixed-effect and random-effects model on the data from the Beck Depression Inventory (mean difference with both models -1.57 (95% CL -4.30 to 1.16; P = 0.26, I(2) = 0) could not confirm the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression results. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis on both the data from Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Becks Depression Inventory showed that insufficient data have been obtained. DISCUSSION: Cognitive therapy might not be an effective treatment for major depressive disorder compared with 'treatment as usual'. The possible treatment effect measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression is relatively small. More randomized trials with low risk of bias, increased sample sizes, and broader more clinically relevant outcomes are needed

Rationale and design of the participant, investigator, observer, and data-analyst-blinded randomized AGENDA trial on associations between gene-polymorphisms, endophenotypes for depression and antidepressive intervention: the effect of escitalopram versus placebo on the combined dexamethasone-corticotrophine releasing hormone test and other potential endophenotypes in healthy first-degree relatives of persons with depression

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Endophenotypes are heritable markers, which are more prevalent in patients and their healthy relatives than in the general population. Recent studies point at disturbed regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis as a possible endophenotype for depression. We hypothesize that potential endophenotypes for depression may be affected by selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor antidepressants in healthy first-degree relatives of depressed patients. The primary outcome measure is the change in plasma cortisol in the dexamethasone-corticotrophin releasing hormone test from baseline to the end of intervention.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The AGENDA trial is designed as a participant, investigator, observer, and data-analyst-blinded randomized trial. Participants are 80 healthy first-degree relatives of patients with depression. Participants are randomized to escitalopram 10 mg per day versus placebo for four weeks. Randomization is stratified by gender and age. The primary outcome measure is the change in plasma cortisol in the dexamethasone-corticotrophin releasing hormone test at entry before intervention to after four weeks of intervention. With the inclusion of 80 participants, a 60% power is obtained to detect a clinically relevant difference in the primary outcome between the intervention and the placebo group. Secondary outcome measures are changes from baseline to four weeks in scores of: 1) cognition and 2) neuroticism. Tertiary outcomes measures are changes from baseline to four weeks in scores of: 1) depression and anxiety symptoms; 2) subjective evaluations of depressive symptoms, perceived stress, quality of life, aggression, sleep, and pain; and 3) salivary cortisol at eight different timepoints during an ordinary day. Assessments are undertaken by assessors blinded to the randomization group.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Local Ethics Committee: H-KF 307413</p> <p>Danish Medicines Agency: 2612-3162.</p> <p>EudraCT: 2006-001750-28.</p> <p>Danish Data Agency: 2006-41-6737.</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 00386841</p

The Effect of Interpersonal Psychotherapy and other Psychodynamic Therapies versus ‘Treatment as Usual’ in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Interpersonal psychotherapy and other psychodynamic therapies may be effective interventions for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews.Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials comparing the effect of psychodynamic therapies versus ‘treatment as usual’ for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included six trials randomizing a total of 648 participants. Five trials assessed ‘interpersonal psychotherapy’ and only one trial assessed ‘psychodynamic psychotherapy’. All six trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on all six trials showed that the psychodynamic interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (mean difference −3.12 (95% confidence interval −4.39 to −1.86;P<0.00001), no heterogeneity) compared with ‘treatment as usual’. Trial sequential analysis confirmed this result.We did not find convincing evidence supporting or refuting the effect of interpersonal psychotherapy or psychodynamic therapy compared with ‘treatment as usual’ for patients with major depressive disorder. The potential beneficial effect seems small and effects on major outcomes are unknown. Randomized trials with low risk of systematic errors and low risk of random errors are needed