Severity of unipolar depression and choice of treatment

Amitriptyline versus placebo for major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that was synthesised in 1960 and introduced as early as 1961 in the USA, but is still regularly used. It has also been frequently used as an active comparator in trials on newer antidepressants and can therefore be called a 'benchmark' antidepressant. However, its efficacy and safety compared to placebo in the treatment of major depression has not been assessed in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of amitriptyline compared to placebo or no treatment for major depressive disorder in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) to August 2012. This register contains relevant randomised controlled trials from: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). The reference lists of reports of all included studies were screened and manufacturers of amitriptyline contacted for details of additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline with placebo or no treatment in patients with major depressive disorder as diagnosed by operationalised criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using standardised mean differences (with 95% CI). We used a random-effects model throughout.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 39 trials with a total of 3509 participants. Study duration ranged between three and 12 weeks. Amitriptyline was significantly more effective than placebo in achieving acute response (18 RCTs, n = 1987, OR 2.67, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.23). Significantly fewer participants allocated to amitriptyline than to placebo withdrew from trials due to inefficacy of treatment (19 RCTs, n = 2017, OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.28), but more amitriptyline-treated participants withdrew due to side effects (19 RCTs, n = 2174, OR 4.15, 95% CI 2.71 to 6.35). Amitriptyline also caused more anticholinergic side effects, tachycardia, dizziness, nervousness, sedation, tremor, dyspepsia, sedation, sexual dysfunction and weight gain. In subgroup and meta-regression analyses the results of the primary outcome were robust towards publication year (1971 to 1997), mean participant age at baseline, mean amitriptyline dose, study duration in weeks, pharmaceutical sponsor, inpatient versus outpatient setting and two-arm versus three-arm design. However, higher severity at baseline was associated with higher superiority of amitriptyline (P = 0.02), while higher responder rates in the placebo groups were associated with lower superiority of amitriptyline (P = 0.05). The results of the primary outcome were rather homogeneous, reflecting comparability of the trials. However, methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were usually poorly reported. Not all studies used intention-to-treat analyses and in many of them standard deviations were not reported and often had to be imputed. Funnel plots suggested a possible publication bias, but the trim and fill method did not change the overall effect size much (seven adjusted studies, OR 2.64, 95% CI 2.24 to 3.10).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amitriptyline is an efficacious antidepressant drug. It is, however, also associated with a number of side effects. Degree of placebo response and severity of depression at baseline may moderate drug-placebo efficacy differences.

Relations entre certaines caractéristiques des sujets et la réponse à la thérapie cognitive de la dépression avec des personnes âgées

Available research supports the therapeutic usefulness of cognitive therapy for depressed older adults. Few studies have addressed the issue of response prediction. This research investigates the associations between several pre-intervention characteristics of subjects and therapy outcomes in the context of a group intervention. The characteristics under study were severity of depressive symptommatology, endogenous depression profile, subjective health status, perceived social support, and frequency of cognitive depressive symptoms representing a negative view of oneself. A more severe depressive symptomatology and a more negative health perception were associated with a less favourable outcome of therapy. Although the majority of endogenous patients benefitted from the intervention, only a minority reached the level of symptom remission at the end of treatment. A more pronounced cluster of symptoms characterized by negative thoughts about oneself tended to be associated with a worse outcome. Perceived social support was unrelated to therapy outcome.

Relaxation for depression

BACKGROUND

Many members of the public have negative attitudes towards antidepressants. Psychological interventions are more acceptable but require considerable therapist training. Acceptable psychological interventions that require less training and skill are needed to ensure increased uptake of intervention. A potential intervention of this sort is relaxation techniques.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether relaxation techniques reduce depressive symptoms and improve response/remission.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The register of trials kept by the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group was searched up to February 2008. We also searched the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of relaxation techniques (progressive muscle relaxation, relaxation imagery, autogenic training) in participants diagnosed with depression or having a high level of depression symptoms. Self-rated and clinician-rated depression scores and response/remission were the primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers selected the trials, assessed the quality and extracted trial and outcome data, with discrepancies resolved by consultation with a third. Trial authors were approached for missing data where possible and missing data were estimated or imputed in some cases. Continuous measures were summarised using standardised mean differences and dichotomous outcomes by risk ratios.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 15 trials with 11 included in the meta-analysis. Five trials showed relaxation reduced self-reported depression compared to wait-list, no treatment, or minimal treatment post intervention (SMD -0.59 (95% CI -0.94 to -0.24)). For clinician-rated depression, two trials showed a non-significant difference in the same direction (SMD -1.35 (95% CI -3.06 to 0.37)).Nine trials showed relaxation produced less effect than psychological (mainly cognitive-behavioural) treatment on self-reported depression (SMD = 0.38 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.62)). Three trials showed no significant difference between relaxation and psychological treatment on clinician-rated depression at post intervention (SMD 0.29 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.75)).Inconsistent effects were found when comparing relaxation training to medication and there were few data available comparing relaxation with complementary and lifestyle treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Relaxation techniques were more effective at reducing self-rated depressive symptoms than no or minimal treatment. However, they were not as effective as psychological treatment. Data on clinician-rated depressive symptoms were less conclusive. Further research is required to investigate the possibility of relaxation being used as a first-line treatment in a stepped care approach to managing depression, especially in younger populations and populations with subthreshold or first episodes of depression.

Randomised controlled trial of interpersonal psychotherapy and cognitive-behavioural therapy for depression

BACKGROUND

Interpersonal psychotherapy and cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) are established as effective treatments for major depression. Controversy remains regarding their effectiveness for severe and melancholic depression.

AIMS

To compare the efficacy of interpersonal psychotherapy and CBT in people receiving out-patient treatment for depression and to explore response in severe depression (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score above 30), and in melancholic depression.

METHOD

Randomised clinical trial of 177 patients with a principal Axis I diagnosis of major depressive disorder receiving 16 weeks of therapy comprising 8-19 sessions. Primary outcome was improvement in MADRS score from baseline to end of treatment.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the two psychotherapies in the sample as a whole, but CBT was more effective than interpersonal psychotherapy in severe depression, and the response was comparable with that for mild and moder-ate depression. Melancholia did not predict poor response to either psychotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Both therapies are equally effective for depression but CBT may be preferred in severe depression.

The future of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in psychiatric treatment

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are widely prescribed and widely regarded as a first-line treatment for depression. Yet, a growing body of evidence indicates that these agents are only moderately more effective than placebo in treating major depressive disorder. In recent years, it has been debated whether SSRIs offer any clinically meaningful advantage over placebos. As part of this debate, it has been argued that these agents are first-line treatments for some forms of depression but not necessarily for others. The present paper examines two hypotheses that are central to these issues. The first hypothesis is that SSRIs are more effective than placebo for some types of depression but not for others. The second is that SSRIs are more effective than psychotherapies for some types of depression than others. A review of the empirical literature reveals three main classifications of depression that are relevant to the first hypothesis: (a) more vs. less severe depression, (b) melancholic vs. non-melancholic depression, and (c) depression defined according to associated genetic factors (particularly the long vs. short allele of the serotonin transporter gene promoter). There is no strong or consistent support for (a) or (b). There is, however, emerging and consistent evidence for (c), and so the first hypothesis is tentatively supported, but only for (c). Most of the empirical evidence does not support the second hypothesis. Psychotherapies (cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal therapies) and SSRIs generally have equivalent efficacy, regardless of the severity of depression. The research literature also suggests a third hypothesis that remains to be evaluated: that SSRIs are more effective for treating anxiety disorders (and possibly other disorders) than they are for treating depression. If that hypothesis is supported by subsequent research, then the future of SSRIs may lie largely in the treatment of anxiety disorders, and in the management of particular subtypes of depression.

Controlled acute and follow-up trial of cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy in out-patients with recurrent depression

BACKGROUND

We report a randomised controlled trial, in both the acute and maintenance stage of treatment, in 75 out-patients with recurrent major depression.

METHOD

Patients were allocated to three groups: 16 weeks of acute treatment and two years' maintenance treatment in the following way: antidepressants and maintenance antidepressants; cognitive therapy and maintenance cognitive therapy; antidepressants and maintenance cognitive therapy. Both completers' and end-point data were analysed.

RESULTS

In the acute phase of treatment, all patients improved significantly and there was no significant difference among treatments, or in the pattern of improvement over time. In the maintenance stage of treatment, patients kept improving over time in all three groups and there was no significant difference among treatments. Cognitive therapy was consistently superior to medication.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that maintenance cognitive therapy has a similar prophylactic effect to maintenance medication and is a viable option for maintenance after acute treatment with medication in recurrent depression.

The effect of person-centered counseling on the psychological status of persons with systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We tested the effectiveness of a 6-month person-centered (PC), nondirective, telephone-based counseling intervention for improving the psychological status of persons with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

The design was a parallel-group, randomized, controlled study comparing a PC counseling intervention (8 SLE, 28 RA patients) with usual care (7 SLE, 30 RA patients). The Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales was used to measure psychological dysfunction, physical dysfunction, and pain at baseline and at followup.

RESULTS

The main finding was that the PC counseling intervention significantly improved the psychological status of the SLE patients (P < 0.05, effect size = 1.13, responsiveness = 0.77) in comparison to usual care. There was no evidence of a benefit for persons with RA or of improvements in physical function or pain for persons with either disease.

CONCLUSIONS

PC counseling may be an effective intervention for improving the psychological status of persons with SLE, but may not be for those with RA.

Short-term psychotherapy of depressive disorders: current status and future directions

Depressive disorders can affect all aspects of a person's functioning and are often associated with significant psychosocial impairment. Such psychosocial problems promote studies of the efficacy of short-term psychotherapy for depressive disorders. This report summarizes the literature on acute-phase, short-term psychotherapy for adult outpatients with major depressive disorder and is an updated component of a larger review commissioned by the United States Public Health Services Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR review on "Short-term Psychotherapy for Depression," Jarrett and Maguire [1991]; Jarrett and Down [in press] during the preparation of the Clinical Practice Guidelines in primary care (Depression Guideline Panel 1993). The short-term psychotherapies reviewed here and studied most often include behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, and brief dynamic psychotherapy, which all aim to reduce depressive symptoms. We comment on the state of the literature and raise some of the questions which await data.

Outcome profiles in the treatment of unipolar depression

Treatment efficacy is typically evaluated by examining group means and pre-post change scores. Although informative, such analyses may obscure individual or subgroup differences in response (outcome profiles). The present study used two different methods to define treatment outcome profiles--rationally-derived criteria (Frank et al., Archives of General Psychiatry 48, 851-855, 1991) and dynamic clustering--to evaluate four treatments of unipolar depression: behaviour therapy, amitriptyline, psychodynamic psychotherapy and relaxation training (attention placebo). The profiling methods yielded similar results. Regardless of treatment, the majority of patients displayed either a recovery or nonremission outcome profile, with relatively few instances of remission followed by a recurrence of depression. These findings challenge the view that any of the treatments are associated with a strong tendency to relapse, at least over the 3-month follow-up period. To further characterize the major outcome profiles, discriminant analysis was performed. Results indicated that recovery and nonremission profiles differed in that the latter was associated with a longer and more severe index episode and greater neuroticism. A number of variables, including family history of depression and therapists' prediction of outcome, failed to distinguish recovered from unremitted patients.