Efficacy of anti‐inflammatory treatment on major depressive disorder or depressive symptoms: meta‐analysis of clinical trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 139 (5) ◽  
pp. 404-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Köhler‐Forsberg ◽  
C. N. Lydholm ◽  
C. Hjorthøj ◽  
M. Nordentoft ◽  
O. Mors ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Anti Inflammatory

scholarly journals Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Caroline Kamp Jørgensen ◽  
Michael Pascal Hengartner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods/design A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. Discussion As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220279

scholarly journals Psychotherapy for subclinical depression: meta-analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 205 (4) ◽  
pp. 268-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pim Cuijpers ◽  
Sander L. Koole ◽  
Annemiek van Dijke ◽  
Miquel Roca ◽  
Juan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Major Depression ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Major Depressive Episodes ◽  
Depressive Episodes ◽  
Subclinical Depression

BackgroundThere is controversy about whether psychotherapies are effective in the treatment of subclinical depression, defined by clinically relevant depressive symptoms in the absence of a major depressive disorder.AimsTo examine whether psychotherapies are effective in reducing depressive symptoms, reduce the risk of developing major depressive disorder and have comparable effects to psychological treatment of major depression.MethodWe conducted a meta-analysis of 18 studies comparing a psychological treatment of subclinical depression with a control group.ResultsThe target groups, therapies and characteristics of the included studies differed considerably from each other, and the quality of many studies was not optimal. Psychotherapies did have a small to moderate effect on depressive symptoms against care as usual at the post-test assessment (g = 0.35, 95% CI 0.23–0.47; NNT = 5, 95% CI 4–8) and significantly reduced the incidence of major depressive episodes at 6 months (RR = 0.61) and possibly at 12 months (RR = 0.74). The effects were significantly smaller than those of psychotherapy for major depressive disorder and could be accounted for by non-specific effects of treatment.ConclusionsPsychotherapy may be effective in the treatment of subclinical depression and reduce the incidence of major depression, but more high-quality research is needed.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Toward Adults With Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuya Yan ◽  
Yanyan Shan ◽  
Shuming Zhong ◽  
Haofei Miao ◽  
Yange Luo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Randomized Controlled

The practice-based evidence suggests that it is possible to use eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) to treat major depressive disorder (MDD), but its specific efficacy is unknown. A systematic search was carried out for randomized controlled trials comparing EMDR with a control condition group in MDD patients. Two meta-analyses were conducted, with symptom reduction as primary outcome and remission as exploratory outcome. Eight studies with 320 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The first meta-analysis showed that EMDR outperformed “No Intervention” in decreasing depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.81, 95% CI = −1.22 to −0.39, p < 0.001, low certainty), but statistically significant differences were not observed in improving remission (risk ratio = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.87–1.66, p = 0.25, very low certainty). The second showed the superiority of EMDR over CBT in reducing depressive symptoms (mean difference [MD] = −7.33, 95% CI = −8.26 to −6.39, p < 0.001, low certainty), and improving remission (risk ratio = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.24–3.06, p = 0.004, very low certainty). Besides, anxiety symptoms and level of functioning could not be included as secondary outcome due to the lack of data. The present meta-analysis suggests that EMDR is more effective in treating MDD than “No Intervention” and CBT, particularly in individuals who have traumatic experience. However, this result should be considered with caution due to small sample size and low quality of trails.

scholarly journals Effects of ketamine in electroconvulsive therapy for major depressive disorder: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. e100117
Author(s):  
Xiao-Mei Li ◽  
Zhan-Ming Shi ◽  
Pei-Jia Wang ◽  
Hua Hu
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Grade Approach

BackgroundThe use of ketamine in electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has been examined in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD); however, there has been no systematic review and meta-analysis of related randomised controlled trials (RCTs).AimTo examine the efficacy and safety of ketamine augmentation of ECT in MDD treatment.MethodsTwo reviewers searched Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang) and English (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Library) databases from their inception to 23 July 2019. The included studies' bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was improved depressive symptoms at day 1 after a single ECT treatment session. Data were pooled to calculate the standardised mean difference and risk ratio with their 95% CIs using RevMan V.5.3. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the whole quality of evidence.ResultsFour RCTs (n = 239) compared ketamine alone or ketamine plus propofol (n = 149) versus propofol alone (n = 90) in patients with MDD who underwent a single ECT session. Three RCTs were considered as unclear risk with respect to random sequence generation using the Cochrane risk of bias. Compared with propofol alone, ketamine alone and the combination of ketamine and propofol had greater efficacy in the treatment of depressive symptoms at days 1, 3 and 7 after a single ECT session. Moreover, compared with propofol alone, ketamine alone and the combination of ketamine and propofol were significantly associated with increased seizure duration and seizure energy index. Compared with propofol, ketamine alone was significantly associated with increased opening-eye time. Based on the GRADE approach, the evidence level of primary and secondary outcomes ranged from very low (26.7%, 4/15) to ‘low’ (73.3%, 11/15).ConclusionCompared with propofol, there were very low or low evidence levels showing that ketamine alone and the combination of ketamine and propofol appeared to rapidly improve depressive symptoms of patients with MDD undergoing a single ECT session. There is a need for high-quality RCTs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document