Cochrane Collaboration Depression , Anxiety And Neurosis Controlled Trials Register Research Articles

Long-Term Efficacy of Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Self-Help Programs for Adults With Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Depression is a worldwide mental disorder and a leading cause of disability. Many people with depression do not want to take medication or have the motivation to seek psychotherapy treatment for many reasons. Guided internet-based self-help programs may be a promising solution for addressing these issues. This kind of intervention has proven to be effective in reducing depression symptoms on a short-term scale. However, as treatment often is a long-term rehabilitation process, it is important to examine not only the short-term effects of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) self-help treatment but also the follow-up or long-term efficacy of this kind of intervention. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify studies that examined follow-up data ≥8 weeks after posttreatment measurements and thereby examined the long-term efficacy of iCBT self-help programs with minimal weekly guidance for people with depression. It aimed to analyze the long-term efficacy of iCBT treatments compared to control conditions as well as long-term efficacy within the iCBT treatment conditions. Additionally, it aimed to conduct subgroup analyses according to the follow-up time points for each outcome. Finally, it examined long-term improvements in quality of life. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety, and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), grey literature, reference lists, and correspondence were used to search for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported the long-term or follow-up efficacy of computer-based or iCBT self-help treatments for depression with minimal guidance of up to 10 min/wk. The search took place between 2015 and 2022 (October). The search resulted in a total of 2809 study abstracts, of which 15 studies (with 17 samples) met all inclusion criteria and were included in the long-term analysis. The results showed that the depression outcomes of all follow-up time points together in the treatment conditions were favored over the control conditions with a medium effect size of 0.43 (n=1689 participants; 9 RCTs; standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.43, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.20; P<.001). The analysis of long-term efficacy within the iCBT treatment conditions showed that the follow-up outcomes of the treatment groups were favored over the posttreatment outcomes with a small effect size of 0.20 (n=2196 participants; 17 RCTs; SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.49; P=.003). Findings for improving quality of life also showed that the iCBT conditions were favored over the control conditions with a small effect size of 0.19 (n=1345 participants; 3 RCTs; SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.30; P<.001). This systematic review and meta-analysis found that iCBT self-help interventions had a superior long-term efficacy for individuals with depressive symptoms compared to control groups. The within-group analysis of iCBT treatment conditions also showed statistically significant improvements in reducing depressive symptoms at follow-up compared to posttreatment measurements.

Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.

Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.

Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.

Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.

Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.

Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.

Psychotherapy mediated by remote communication technologies: a meta-analytic review.

BackgroundAccess to psychotherapy is limited by psychopathology (e.g. agoraphobia), physical disability, occupational or social constraints and/or residency in under-served areas. For these populations, interventions delivered via remote communication technologies (e.g. telephone, internet) may be more appropriate. However, there are concerns that such delivery may influence the therapeutic relationship and thus reduce therapy effectiveness. This review aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness of remotely communicated, therapist-delivered psychotherapy.MethodsSystematic review (including electronic database searching and correspondence with authors) of randomised trials of individual remote psychotherapy. Electronic databases searched included MEDLINE (1966–2006), PsycInfo (1967–2006), EMBASE (1980–2006) and CINAHL databases (1982–2006). The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDAN-CTR). All searches were conducted to include studies with a publication date to July 2006.ResultsThirteen studies were identified, ten assessing psychotherapy by telephone, two by internet and one by videoconference. Pooled effect sizes for remote therapy versus control conditions were 0.44 for depression (95%CI 0.29 to 0.59, 7 comparisons, n = 726) and 1.15 for anxiety-related disorders (95%CI 0.81 to 1.49, 3 comparisons, n = 168). There were few comparisons of remote versus face-to-face psychotherapy.ConclusionRemote therapy has the potential to overcome some of the barriers to conventional psychological therapy services. Telephone-based interventions are a particularly popular research focus and as a means of therapeutic communication may confer specific advantages in terms of their widespread availability and ease of operation. However, the available evidence is limited in quantity and quality. More rigorous trials are required to confirm these preliminary estimates of effectiveness. Future research priorities should include overcoming the methodological shortcomings of published work by conducting large-scale trials that incorporate both clinical outcome and more process-orientated measures.

Azapirones for generalized anxiety disorder

Azapirones are a group of drugs that work at the 5-HT1A receptor and are used to treat patients suffering from generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). However, several studies have shown conflicting results. Whether azapirones are useful as first line treatment in general anxiety disorders still needs to be answered. To assess the efficacy and the acceptability of azapirones for the treatment of GAD. Initially the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched, incorporating results of group searches of MEDLINE (1966 to June 2005), EMBASE (1980 to June 2005), CINAHL (1982 to June 2005), PsycLIT (1974 to June 2005), PSYNDEX (1977 to June 2005), and LILACS (1982 to June 2005). Subsequently the revised Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Registers (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) were searched on 21-10-2005. Reference lists of relevant papers and major text books of anxiety disorder were examined. Authors, other experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for knowledge of suitable trials, published or unpublished. Specialist journals concerning azapirones were handsearched. Randomized controlled trials of azapirones, including buspirone versus placebo and/or other medication and/or psychological treatment, were included. Participants were males and females of all ages with a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder. Data were extracted from the original reports independently by CC, MA and MT. The main outcomes studied were related to the objectives stated above. Data were analysed for generalized anxiety disorder versus placebo, versus other medication and versus psychological treatment separately. Data were analysed using Review Manager Version 4.2.7. Thirty six trials were included in the review, reporting on 5908 participants randomly allocated to azapirones and/or placebo, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, psychotherapy or kava kava. Azapirones, including buspirone, were superior to placebo in treating GAD. The calculated number needed to treat for azapirones using the Clinical Global Impression scale was 4.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.16 to 15.4). Azapirones may be less effective than benzodiazepines and we were unable to conclude if azapirones were superior to antidepressants, kava kava or psychotherapy. Azapirones appeared to be well tolerated. Fewer participants stopped taking benzodiazepines compared to azapirones. The length of studies ranged from four to nine weeks, with one study lasting 14 weeks. Azapirones appeared to be useful in the treatment of GAD, particularly for those participants who had not been on a benzodiazepine. Azapirones may not be superior to benzodiazepines and do not appear as acceptable as benzodiazepines. Side effects appeared mild and non serious in the azapirone treated group. Longer term studies are needed to show that azapirones are effective in treating GAD, which is a chronic long-term illness.

Inositol for depressive disorders.

There are a number of effective interventions for the treatment of depression. It is possible that the efficacy of these treatments will be improved further by the use of adjunctive therapies such as inositol. 1. To determine the effectiveness of inositol in the treatment of depression.2. To determine the adverse effects and acceptability of treatment with inositol. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) incorporating results of group searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, LILACS, CINAHL, PSYNDEX and PsycLIT were searched. Reference lists of relevant papers and major textbooks of affective disorder were checked. Experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies were contacted regarding unpublished material. All randomised controlled trials that compare treatment with inositol, whether as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, to an alternative treatment, whether another antidepressant medication or placebo, for patients with a diagnosis of depressive disorder (diagnosed according to explicit criteria). Data were independently extracted from the original reports by two reviewers. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager version 4.2.1. Four trials were identified, with a total of 141 participants. These were short term trials of double-blind design. The trials did not show clear evidence of a therapeutic benefit, nor any evidence of poor acceptability. It is currently unclear whether or not inositol is of benefit in the treatment of depression. Ongoing studies should reduce this uncertainty.

Review: continuing treatment with antidepressants reduces the rate of relapse or recurrence of depressive symptoms regardless of duration of treatment before or after randomisation

(2003) Lancet 361, 653. Geddes JR, Carney SM, Davies C, et al. . Relapse prevention with antidepressant drug treatment in depressive disorders: a systematic review. . ; . : ....

Review: continuing antidepressants for 12 months following acute treatment may reduce the risk of relapse in depression

Geddes JR, Carney SM, Davies C et al. Relapse prevention with antidepressant drug treatment in depressive disorders: a systematic review. Lancet2003 ; Feb, 361 : 653 –61. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4]...

Low dosage tricyclic antidepressants for depression.

Tricyclic antidepressants are still extensively prescribed worldwide. Evidence for the recommended dosage of tricyclics, however, is poor. To compare the effects and side effects of low dosage tricyclic antidepressants with placebo and with standard dosage tricyclics in acute phase treatment of depression. Electronic search of the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), incorporating results of group searches of MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1980-), CINAHL (1982-), PsycLIT (1974-), PSYNDEX (1977-) and LILACS (1982-1999) and hand searches of major psychiatric and medical journals. Reference search and SciSearch of the identified studies. Personal contact with authors of significant papers. All randomised controlled trials 1) comparing low dosage TCA (=< 100 mg/d on average at the end of trial) with placebo or 2) comparing low and standard dosages of the same TCA, in acute phase treatment of depressive disorder Two independent reviewers examined eligibility of the identified studies, and extracted data for outcomes at 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6-8 weeks and later. Main outcome measures were relative risk of response in depression (random effects model), according to the original authors' definition but usually defined as 50% or greater reduction in severity of depression according to the last-observation-carried-forward intention-to-treat method, and relative risks of overall dropouts and dropouts due to side effects. Other outcome measures included worst-case-scenario intention-to-treat analysis of response as defined above (in which dropouts were considered non-responders in the active treatment group and as responders in the comparison group), and standardised weighted mean scores of continuous depression severity scales (usually calculated by last-observation-carried-forward method). 35 studies (2013 participants) compared low dosage tricyclics with placebo, and six studies (551 participants) compared low dosage tricyclics with standard dosage tricyclics. Low dosage tricyclics, mostly between 75 and 100 mg/day, were 1.65 (95% confidence interval 1.36 to 2.0) and 1.47 (1.12 to 1.94) times more likely than placebo to bring about response at 4 weeks and 6-8 weeks, respectively. Standard dosage tricyclics failed, however, to bring about more response but produced more dropouts due to side effects than low dosage tricyclics. Treatment of depression in adults with low dose tricyclics is justified. However, more rigorous studies are needed to definitively establish the relative benefits and harms of varying dosages.

Folate for depressive disorders.

There are a number of effective interventions for the treatment of depression. It is possible that the efficacy of these treatments will be improved further by the use of adjunctive therapies such as folate. 1. To determine the effectiveness of folate in the treatment of depression 2. To determine the adverse effects and acceptability of treatment with folate. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), and the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) incorporating results of group searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, LILACS, CINAHL, PSYNDEX and PsycLIT were searched. Reference lists of relevant papers and major textbooks of affective disorder were checked. Experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies were contacted regarding unpublished material. All randomised controlled trials that compared treatment with folic acid or 5'-methyltetrahydrofolic acid to an alternative treatment, whether another antidepressant medication or placebo, for patients with a diagnosis of depressive disorder (diagnosed according to explicit criteria). Data were independently extracted from the original reports by two reviewers. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager version 4.1. Three trials involving 247 people were included. Two studies involving 151 people assessed the use of folate in addition to other treatment, and found that adding folate reduced Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores on average by a further 2.65 points (95% confidence interval 0.38 to 4.93). Fewer patients treated with folate experienced a reduction in their HDRS score of less than 50% at ten weeks (relative risk (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92) The number needed to treat with folate for one additional person to experience a 50% reduction on this scale was 5 (95% confidence interval 4 to 33). One study involving 96 people assessed the use of folate instead of the antidepressant trazodone and did not find a significant benefit from the use of folate. The trials identified did not find evidence of any problems with the acceptability or safety of folate. The limited available evidence suggests folate may have a potential role as a supplement to other treatment for depression. It is currently unclear if this is the case both for people with normal folate levels, and for those with folate deficiency.

Olanzapine alone or in combination for acute mania.

Olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, is used in the treatment of mania both as monotherapy and combined with other medicines. To review the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine in the treatment of mania The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched. Randomised trials comparing olanzapine with placebo or other drug in acute manic or mixed episodes. Two reviewers independently extracted data from trial reports Six trials (1422 participants) were included in the review. There was a high rate of failure to complete treatment on all treatments which may have biased the estimates of relative efficacy. Olanzapine was superior to placebo at reducing manic symptoms as monotherapy (Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) - weighted mean difference (WMD): -5.94, 95% CI -9.09 to -2.80) and in combination with lithium/valproate (YMRS) (WMD -4.01, 95% confidence interval -6.06 to -1.96). Olanzapine monotherapy was superior at reducing psychotic symptoms (PANSS positive symptoms subscale WMD: -3.54, 95% CI -5.28 to -1.80). Olanzapine was superior to divalproex at reducing manic symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD): -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.08). Olanzapine did not lead to a statistically higher rate of clinical response than haloperidol (RR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.38). Fewer patients discontinued treatment on olanzapine than placebo (RR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.80). Olanzapine caused greater weight gain than placebo (WMD 1.91Kg, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.53) and somnolence (RR: 2.13 95% CI 1.62 to 2.79) but not more depressive symptoms (RR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.40) or movement disorder (WMD: -0.33, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.09). Olanzapine caused more prolactin elevation than placebo (RR: 4.35 95%CI 1.77 to 10.70). Olanzapine caused greater weight gain (WMD: 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.05); somnolence (RR: 1.80 95% CI 1.32 to 2.46) and movement disorders (SAS - WMD: 0.72 95% CI 0.11 to 1.33) than divalproex but less nausea ( RR: 0.36 95% CI 0.20 to 0.65). Olanzapine caused more weight gain than haloperidol (RR: 3.59, 95% CI 1.49 to 8.64) but less movement disorder (EPS RR: 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.24). Olanzapine is an effective treatment for mania and may be more efficacious than divalproex, though leads to more weight gain. Clinicians should consider both the relative efficacy and the different incidence of specific adverse effects of available drugs.

Lithium for maintenance treatment of mood disorders.

Mood disorders are common, disabling and tend to be recurrent. They carry a high risk of suicide. Maintenance treatment, aimed at the prevention of relapse, is therefore of vital importance. Lithium has been used for some years as the mainstay of maintenance treatment in bipolar affective disorder, and to a lesser extent in unipolar disorder. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of prophylactic lithium therapy has been disputed. Low suicide rates in lithium-treated patients have led to claims that lithium has a specific anti-suicidal effect. If so, this is of considerable importance as treatments for mental disorders in general have not been shown convincingly to be effective in suicide prevention. 1. To investigate the efficacy of lithium treatment in the prevention of relapse in recurrent mood disorders. 2. To examine the effect of lithium treatment on consumers' general health and social functioning, its acceptability to consumers, and the side-effects of treatment. 3. To investigate the hypothesis that lithium has a specific effect in reducing the incidence of suicide and deliberate self-harm in persons with mood disorders. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) and The Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register (CCTR) were searched. Reference lists of relevant papers and major text books of mood disorder were examined. Authors, other experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for knowledge of suitable trials, published or unpublished. Specialist journals concerning lithium were hand searched. Randomised controlled trials comparing lithium with placebo, where the stated intent of treatment was maintenance or prophylaxis. Participants were males and females of all ages with diagnoses of mood disorder. Discontinuation studies (in which all participants had been stable on lithium for some time before being randomised to either continued lithium treatment or placebo substitution) were excluded. Data were extracted from the original reports independently by two reviewers. The main outcomes studied were related to the objectives stated above. Data were analysed for all diagnoses of mood disorder and for bipolar and unipolar disorder separately. Data were analysed using Review Manager version 4.0. Nine studies were included in the review, reporting on 825 participants randomly allocated to lithium or placebo. Lithium was found to be more effective than placebo in preventing relapse in mood disorder overall, and in bipolar disorder. The most consistent effect was found in bipolar disorder (random effects OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.93 ). In unipolar disorder, the direction of effect was in favour of lithium, but the result (when heterogeneity between studies was allowed for) did not reach statistical significance. Considerable heterogeneity was found between studies in all groups of patients. The direction of effect was the same in all studies; no study found a negative effect for lithium. Heterogeneity may have been due to differences in selection of participants, and to differing exposures to lithium in the pre-study phase resulting in variable influence of a discontinuation effect. There was little reported data on overall health and social functioning of participants under the different treatment conditions, or on the participants' own views of their treatment. Descriptive analysis showed that assessments of general health and social functioning generally favoured lithium. Small absolute numbers of deaths and suicides, and the absence of data on non-fatal suicidal behaviours, made it impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about the place of lithium therapy in suicide prevention. This systematic review indicates that lithium is an efficacious maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder. In unipolar disorder the evidence of efficacy is less robust. This review does not cover the relative efficacy of lithium compared with other maintenance treatments, which is at present unclear. There is no definitive evidence from this review as to whether or not lithium has an anti-suicidal effect. Systematic reviews and large scale randomised studies comparing lithium with other maintenance treatments (e.g. anti-convulsants, antidepressants) are necessary. Outcomes relating to death and suicidal behaviour should be included in all future maintenance studies of mood disorder.

Valproic acid, valproate and divalproex in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.

Although lithium has been the most commonly used maintenance treatment in bipolar disorder for several decades, valproate is being used increasingly - especially in the United States of America. There is a need to clarify whether the increasingly prominent prophylactic role of valproate in bipolar disorder is justified. To review the effectiveness of valproate, relative to placebo, other mood stabilisers and antipsychotics, in the prevention and/or attenuation of acute episodes of bipolar disorder. The effectiveness of valproate was considered in terms of mood symptoms, mortality, general health, social functioning, adverse effects and overall acceptability to patients. The CCDAN group search strategy was used. The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), The Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register (CCCTR), EMBASE, MEDLINE, LILACS, PsycLIT and Psyndex. Reference lists of relevant papers and major textbooks of mood disorder were examined. Authors, other experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for knowledge of suitable published or unpublished trials. Randomised controlled trials which compared valproate with placebo, alternative mood stabilisers (including lithium and carbamazepine) or neuroleptics, where the stated intent of intervention was the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. Participants were males and females of all ages with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder however diagnosed, approximating to ICD 10 Code F31 and DSM IV 296, but including patients diagnosed as ICD-9 manic depressive psychosis and DSM-III and DSM-IIIR bipolar disorder. Data were extracted from the original reports individually by two reviewers. The main outcomes to be assessed were: 1. The effectiveness of valproate treatment in preventing or attenuating further episodes of bipolar disorder, including its effectiveness in rapid cycling disorder. 2. The acceptability of valproate treatment to patients. 3. The prevalence of side-effects. 4. Mortality on valproate treatment. Outcomes concerning relapse/recurrence were analysed excluding data from discontinuation studies, which were to be analysed separately. Sub-group analyses were to be performed to examine the effects of valproate treatment in rapid cycling bipolar disorder and previous mood stabiliser non-responders. Data were analysed using Review Manager version 4.1. One trial of 12 months duration with 372 participants was identified comparing lithium, divalproex and placebo. It had several methodological limitations. The primary analysis of time to occurrence of mood episode described in the main trial report found no reliable difference between the treatments, although there was a trend for divalproex to be more effective than lithium. In the analysis in this review, patients taking divalproex who left the study because of the occurrence of an mood episode were significantly less in number than those on placebo (RRR 37%; RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90). There was no significant difference in the numbers of patients in receipt of divalproex compared with those in receipt of lithium who left the study because they suffered any mood episode. (RRR 22%; RR 0.78; 95% C.I. 0.52 to 1.17). There was insufficient information to allow sub-group analyses of rapid-cycling disorder. The divalproex group had significantly more patients suffering tremor (RRI 223%; RR 3.23; 95% C.I. 1.85 to 5.62), weight gain (RRI 187%; RR 2.87; 95% C.I. 1.34 to 6.17) and alopecia (RRI 143%; RR 2.43; 95% C.I. 1.05 to 5.65) than the placebo group. In comparison with the lithium, divalproex was associated with more frequent sedation (RRI 58%; RR 1.58; 95% C.I. 1.08 to 2.32) and infection (RRI 107%; RR 2.07; 95% C.I. 1.16 to 3.68), but less suffered thirst (RRR 62%; RR 0.38; 95% C.I. 0.18 to 0.81) and polyuria (RRR 57%; RR 0.43; 95% C.I. 0.22 to 0.82). In view of the equivocal findings of this review, conclusions about the efficacy and acceptability of valproate compared to placebo and lithium cannot be made with any degree of confidence. With current evidence, patients and clinicians would probably wish to use lithium before valproate for maintenance treatment. At present, the observed shift of prescribing practice to valproate is not based on reliable evidence of efficacy