Forks in the road: Definitions of response, remission, recovery, and other dichotomized outcomes in randomized controlled trials for adolescent depression. A scoping review

Efficacy and safety of non-invasive brain stimulation in combination with antidepressants in adolescents with depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is beneficial to adult patients with depression, but its safety and efficacy in combination with antidepressants in children and adolescents with depression are not clear. We conducted a preliminary meta-analysis to objectively evaluate its clinical effect and provide information for future research and clinical practice.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were searched systematically to find clinical trials published in English before April 11, 2023. Stata software was used for meta-analysis, and random or fixed effect models were used to combine effect sizes.

Results

Nine studies were eligible and included (n = 393). No articles about children were included in the analysis. The results showed that the remission rate was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13% to 71%). The scores of Children's Depression Rating Scale (CRDS) and Hamilton's depression scale (HAMD) significantly decreased compared to baseline value (MD = -27.04, 95% CI: -30.95, -23.12 and MD = -12.78, 95% CI: -19.55 to -6.01). In addition, the incidence of all adverse events was 13% (95% CI: 5%, 23%), and all were minor pain-related events.

Conclusion

The combination of NIBS and antidepressants has been shown to notably alleviate depressive symptoms in adolescents, offering a considerable level of safety. This therapeutic synergy is particularly effective in patients with major depressive disorder, where repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmented with antidepressants can enhance the amelioration of depressive symptoms.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023442215, PROSPERO CRD42023442215.

Economic evaluations of treatment of depressive disorders in adolescents: Protocol for a scoping review

AIM

Depressive disorders in adolescents are common and impairing. Evidence-based treatments are available; however, at a cost. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we anticipate increased demand for treatment services for adolescents with depression. We also anticipate that economic resources will be strained. Identifying cost-effective strategies to optimally treat depression in adolescents is imperative. This protocol for a scoping review aims to describe the literature with respect to economic evaluations of treatments for depression in adolescents.

METHODS

We will conduct a scoping review using established methods and reporting guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsyclNFO, Econlit, and the International HTA Database will be searched from inception to June 13, 2023, with an update closer to time of manuscript submission, while the NHS Economic Evaluation Database archives will be searched from inception to December 2014. Publications that contain economic evaluations, in the context of a clinical trial or a model-based study, testing a treatment of depression in adolescents will be selected for inclusion. Extracted data items will include: economic evaluation perspectives, health outcome variables and costs used in economic evaluations, types of analyses performed, as well as quality of reporting and methodology.

RESULT

A narrative synthesis with summary tables will be used to describe our findings.

CONCLUSION

Our findings will help identify gaps in the literature with respect to economic analyses for the treatment of depression such that these gaps can be filled with future research. Policy-makers, funders and administrators may also use our findings to inform their decisions around provision of various treatments for depression in adolescents.

REGISTRATION

osf.io/5fteb (note that information on this link will be updated upon acceptance for publication based on reviewer comments).

Remission, Recovery, Relapse, and Recurrence Rates for Suicide Attempts and Nonsuicidal Self-Injury for Suicidal Youth Treated With Dialectical Behavior Therapy or Supportive Therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate rates of remission, recovery, relapse, and recurrence in suicidal youth who participated in a clinical trial comparing Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and Individual and Group Supportive Therapy (IGST).

METHOD

Participants were 173 youth, aged 12 to 18 years, with repetitive self-harm (including at least 1 prior suicide attempt [SA]) and elevated suicidal ideation (SI). Participants received 6 months of DBT or IGST and were followed for 6 months post-treatment. The sample was 95% female, 56.4% White, and 27.49% Latina. Remission was defined as absence of SA or nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) across one 3-month interval; recovery was defined across 2 or more consecutive intervals. Relapse and recurrence were defined as SA or NSSI following remission or recovery. Cross-tabulation with χ2 was used for between-group contrasts.

RESULTS

Over 70% of the sample reported remission of SA at each treatment and follow-up interval. There were significantly higher rates of remission and recovery and lower rates of relapse and recurrence for SA in DBT than for IGST. Across treatments and time points, SA had higher remission and recovery rates and lower relapse and recurrence rates than NSSI. There were no significant differences in NSSI remission between conditions; however, participants receiving DBT had significantly higher NSSI recovery rates than those receiving IGST for the 3- to 9-month, 3- to 12-month, and 6- to 12-month intervals.

CONCLUSION

Results showed higher percentages of SA remission and recovery for DBT as compared to IGST. NSSI was less likely to remit than SA.

DIVERSITY & INCLUSION STATEMENT

We worked to ensure race, ethnic, and/or other types of diversity in the recruitment of human participants.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

Collaborative Adolescent Research on Emotions and Suicide (CARES); https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/; NCT01528020.

How much is enough? Considering minimally important change in youth mental health outcomes

To make decisions in mental health care, service users, clinicians, and administrators need to make sense of research findings. Unfortunately, study results are often presented as raw questionnaire scores at different time points and regression coefficients, which are difficult to interpret with regards to their clinical meaning. Other commonly reported treatment outcome indicators in clinical trials or meta-analyses do not convey whether a given change score would make a noticeable difference to service users. There is an urgent need to improve the interpretability and relevance of outcome indicators in youth mental health (aged 12-24 years), in which shared decision making and person-centred care are cornerstones of an ongoing global transformation of care. In this Personal View, we make a case for considering minimally important change (MIC) as a meaningful, accessible, and user-centred outcome indicator. We discuss what the MIC represents, how it is calculated, and how it can be implemented in dialogues between clinician and researcher, and between youth and clinician. We outline how use of the MIC could enhance reporting in clinical trials, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines, and measurement-based care. Finally, we identify current methodological challenges around estimating the MIC and areas for future research. Efforts to select outcome domains and valid measurement instruments that resonate with youth, families, and clinicians have increased in the past 5 years. In this context, now is the time to define demarcations of changes in outcome scores that are clinically relevant, and meaningful to youth and families. Through the use of MIC, youth-centred outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting would support youth-centred therapeutic decision making.

Using individual participant data to improve network meta-analysis projects

A network meta-analysis combines the evidence from existing randomised trials about the comparative efficacy of multiple treatments. It allows direct and indirect evidence about each comparison to be included in the same analysis, and provides a coherent framework to compare and rank treatments. A traditional network meta-analysis uses aggregate data (eg, treatment effect estimates and standard errors) obtained from publications or trial investigators. An alternative approach is to obtain, check, harmonise and meta-analyse the individual participant data (IPD) from each trial. In this article, we describe potential advantages of IPD for network meta-analysis projects, emphasising five key benefits: (1) improving the quality and scope of information available for inclusion in the meta-analysis, (2) examining and plotting distributions of covariates across trials (eg, for potential effect modifiers), (3) standardising and improving the analysis of each trial, (4) adjusting for prognostic factors to allow a network meta-analysis of conditional treatment effects and (5) including treatment-covariate interactions (effect modifiers) to allow relative treatment effects to vary by participant-level covariate values (eg, age, baseline depression score). A running theme of all these benefits is that they help examine and reduce heterogeneity (differences in the true treatment effect between trials) and inconsistency (differences in the true treatment effect between direct and indirect evidence) in the network. As a consequence, an IPD network meta-analysis has the potential for more precise, reliable and informative results for clinical practice and even allows treatment comparisons to be made for individual patients and targeted populations conditional on their particular characteristics.

Revisiting the theoretical and methodological foundations of depression measurement

Depressive disorders are among the leading causes of global disease burden, but there has been limited progress in understanding the causes and treatments for these disorders. In this Perspective, we suggest that such progress crucially depends on our ability to measure depression. We review the many problems with depression measurement, including limited evidence of validity and reliability. These issues raise grave concerns about common uses of depression measures, such as diagnosis or tracking treatment progress. We argue that shortcomings arise because depression measurement rests on shaky methodological and theoretical foundations. Moving forward, we need to break with the field's tradition that has, for decades, divorced theories about depression from how we measure it. Instead, we suggest that epistemic iteration, an iterative exchange between theory and measurement, provides a crucial avenue for depression measurement to progress.