scholarly journals Augmentation therapies for treatment-resistant depression: systematic review and meta-analysis – CORRIGENDUM

2018 ◽  
Vol 214 (5) ◽  
pp. 308-308
Author(s):  
Rebecca Strawbridge ◽  
Ben Carter ◽  
Lindsey Marwood ◽  
Borwin Bandelow ◽  
Dimosthenis Tsapekos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Resistant Depression

scholarly journals Placebo response in treatment resistant depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of multiple treatment modalities

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S261-S262
Author(s):  
Brett D M Jones ◽  
Cory R. Weissman ◽  
Jewel Karbi ◽  
Tya Vine ◽  
Louise S. Mulsant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Placebo Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Placebo Response ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Resistant Depression

AimsThe placebo response in depression clinical trials is a major contributing factor for failure to establish the efficacy of novel and repurposed treatments. However, it is not clear as to what the placebo response in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) patients is or whether it differs across treatment modalities. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the magnitude of the placebo response in TRD patients across different treatment modalities and its possible moderators.MethodSearches were conducted on MEDLINE and PsychInfo from inception to January 24, 2020. Only studies that recruited TRD patients and randomization to a placebo (or sham) arm in a pharmacotherapy, brain stimulation, or psychotherapy study were included (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020190465). The primary outcome was the Hedges’ g for the reported depression scale using a random-effects model. Secondary outcomes included moderators assessed via meta-regression and response and remission rate. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Egger's Test and a funnel plot. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to estimate risks.Result46 studies met our inclusion criteria involving a total of 3083 participants (mean (SD) age: 45.7 (6.2); female: 52.4%). The pooled placebo effect for all modalities was large (N = 3083, g = 1.08 ,95% CI [0.95-1.20)I 2 = 0.1). The placebo effect in studies of specific treatment modalities did not significantly differ: oral medications g = 1.14 (95%CI:0.99-1.29); parenteral medications g = 1.32 (95%CI:0.59-2.04); ayahuasca g = 0.47 (95%CI:-0.28-1.17); rTMS g = 0.93 (95%CI:0.63-1.23); tDCS g = 1.32 (95%CI:0.52-2.11); invasive brain stimulation g = 1.06 (95%CI:0.64-1.47). There were no psychotherapy trials that met our eligibility criteria. Similarly, response and remission rates were comparable across modalities. Heterogeneity was large. Two variables predicted a lager placebo effect: open-label prospective design (B:0.32, 95%CI: 0.05-0.58; p:0.02) and sponsoring by a pharmaceutical or medical device company (B:0.39, 95%CI:0.13-0.65, p:0.004)). No risk of publication bias was found.ConclusionThe overall placebo effect in TRD studies was large (g = 1.08) and did not differ among treatment modalities. A better understanding of the placebo response in TRD will require: standardizing the definition of TRD, head-to-head comparisons of treatment modalities, an assessment of patient expectations and experiences, and standardized reporting of outcomes.

Relative effectiveness of augmentation treatments for treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 477-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Carter ◽  
Rebecca Strawbridge ◽  
Muhammad Ishrat Husain ◽  
Brett D. M. Jones ◽  
Roxanna Short ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Resistant Depression

scholarly journals Augmentation therapies for treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 254 ◽  
pp. 153
Author(s):  
Dr Rebecca Strawbridge ◽  
Dr Ben Carter ◽  
Dr Lindsey Marwood ◽  
Professor Borwin Bandelow ◽  
Dimosthenis Tsapekos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Resistant Depression

scholarly journals Augmentation therapies for treatment-resistant depression: systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 214 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Strawbridge ◽  
Ben Carter ◽  
Lindsey Marwood ◽  
Borwin Bandelow ◽  
Dimosthenis Tsapekos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychological Control ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
The Past ◽  
Grant Support ◽  
Resistant Depression ◽  
Research Grant

BackgroundDepression is considered to have the highest disability burden of all conditions. Although treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a key contributor to that burden, there is little understanding of the best treatment approaches for it and specifically the effectiveness of available augmentation approaches.AimsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to search and quantify the evidence of psychological and pharmacological augmentation interventions for TRD.MethodParticipants with TRD (defined as insufficient response to at least two antidepressants) were randomised to at least one augmentation treatment in the trial. Pre-post analysis assessed treatment effectiveness, providing an effect size (ES) independent of comparator interventions.ResultsOf 28 trials, 3 investigated psychological treatments and 25 examined pharmacological interventions. Pre-post analyses demonstrated N-methyl-d-aspartate-targeting drugs to have the highest ES (ES = 1.48, 95% CI 1.25–1.71). Other than aripiprazole (four studies, ES = 1.33, 95% CI 1.23–1.44) and lithium (three studies, ES = 1.00, 95% CI 0.81–1.20), treatments were each investigated in less than three studies. Overall, pharmacological (ES = 1.19, 95% CI 1.08–1.30) and psychological (ES = 1.43, 95% CI 0.50–2.36) therapies yielded higher ESs than pill placebo (ES = 0.78, 95% CI 0.66–0.91) and psychological control (ES = 0.94, 95% CI 0.36–1.52).ConclusionsDespite being used widely in clinical practice, the evidence for augmentation treatments in TRD is sparse. Although pre-post meta-analyses are limited by the absence of direct comparison, this work finds promising evidence across treatment modalities.Declaration of interestIn the past 3 years, A.H.Y. received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly and Sunovion; honoraria for consulting from Allergan, Livanova and Lundbeck, Sunovion and Janssen; and research grant support from Janssen. In the past 3 years, A.J.C. received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca and Lundbeck; honoraria for consulting with Allergan, Janssen, Livanova, Lundbeck and Sandoz; support for conference attendance from Janssen; and research grant support from Lundbeck. B.B. has recently been (soon to be) on the speakers/advisory board for Hexal, Lilly, Lundbeck, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Servier. No other conflicts of interest.

Efficacy of infliximab in treatment-resistant depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 188 ◽  
pp. 172838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela V. Bavaresco ◽  
Maria Laura Rodrigues Uggioni ◽  
Sarah Dagostin Ferraz ◽  
Rudielly Moraes Machado Marques ◽  
Carla Sasso Simon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Resistant Depression
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document