Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of fluoxetine v. placebo and tricyclic antidepressants in the short-term treatment of major depression

Fluoxetine for the treatment of onychotillomania associated with obsessive–compulsive disorder: a case report

Background

Obsessive–compulsive disorder is a condition in which patients experience an obsession and/or a compulsion. It has a high impact on the quality of life, and is associated with an increased prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities in patients. Onychotillomania is an underestimated psychodermatosis caused by repeated self-inflicted damage to the nail unit. In patients, it is characterized by an obsessive or irrepressible impulse to repeatedly damage their own nails, resulting in their destruction. It is a chronic condition that is difficult to manage, largely because of its psychocutaneous character, as well as its high tendency to interact with underlying neuropsychiatric diseases or other behavioral disorders. Only a few studies have reported an association between obsessive–compulsive disorder and onychotillomania, which typically presents with therapeutic challenges. Cognitive behavioral therapy, physical-barrier approaches, and pharmaceutical treatments have been reported to be beneficial in the management of onychotillomania; however, no major clinical studies have investigated the effectiveness of these therapies. Onychotillomania remains a clinical and therapeutic issue owing to the lack of evidence-based treatment techniques.

Case presentation

We report a case of an 18-year-old, middle-eastern female patient who developed onychotillomania when she was being treated with paroxetine for obsessive–compulsive disorder and was showing partial improvement. The patient developed side effects from paroxetine, and was switched to fluoxetine. Thereafter, improvement in her obsessive–compulsive disorder was observed, which relapsed when treatment was discontinued. However, the onychotillomania symptoms did not reemerge.

Conclusion

Onychotillomania typically presents both diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Fluoxetine plays an important role in the treatment of onychotillomania and other psychiatric disorders. However, large-scale studies should be conducted before these outcomes can be generalized.

Skin conductance while facing emotional pictures at day 7 helps predicting antidepressant response at three months in patients with a major depressive episode

There are currently no reliable biological markers to identify antidepressant responders in patients suffering from major depressive disorder. In this longitudinal pilot study, we measured skin conductance response (SCR) to assess patients' emotional reactivity after antidepressant treatment initiation. Fifty-four adult patients with a major depressive episode were recruited and followed up for 3 months. After one day of antidepressant treatment (D1) and then at day 7 (D7), emotional stimuli were presented on a computer screen while SCR and subjective emotional response were recorded. Three months later, we used Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) to screen patients for treatment response, and distinguished responders (N = 28) from non-responders (N = 15). While SCR at D1 did not differ between responders and non-responders, SCR at D7 was higher in responders for both positive, negative and neutral stimuli. Skin conductance rates at D7 had a relatively poor negative predictive value (38%) but a strong positive predictive value (95%). Further studies are needed to replicate in a larger sample, and validate, these preliminary results which suggest that electrodermal activity after treatment initiation could help predict antidepressant efficacy.

Depression Outcomes Among Patients Treated With Fluoxetine for Stroke Recovery: The AFFINITY Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

One in 3 adults experiences clinically significant symptoms of depression during the first year after a stroke, but evidence to support the use of antidepressants in this population remains scant.

Objective

To investigate whether daily treatment with 20 mg of fluoxetine hydrochloride reduces the proportion of people affected by clinically significant symptoms of depression after stroke.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this secondary analysis of the Assessment of Fluoxetine in Stroke Recovery parallel-group, randomized (1:1 assignment), double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 1221 participants in Australia, New Zealand, and Vietnam were recruited between January 11, 2013, and June 30, 2019, and were followed up for 6 months. Adults aged 18 years or older were recruited 2 to 15 days after experiencing a stroke associated with modified Rankin Scale score of 1 or higher.

Interventions

Fluoxetine hydrochloride, 20 mg, or matched placebo daily for 26 weeks.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score of 9 or lower was a prespecified secondary outcome of the trial. Assessments were completed at baseline and at 4, 12, and 26 weeks. Other outcomes of interest included participant-reported clinician diagnosis of depression, prescription of a nontrial antidepressant, or nonpharmacologic treatment of depression. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

A total of 607 participants (378 men [62.3%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [12.2] years) were randomly assigned treatment with placebo, and 614 participants (397 men [64.7%]; mean [SD] age, 63.4 [12.4] years) were randomly assigned treatment with 20 mg of fluoxetine hydrochloride daily. The groups were balanced for demographic and clinical measures. At baseline, 112 patients (18.5%) in the placebo group and 116 patients (18.9%) in the fluoxetine group had PHQ-9 scores of 9 or higher. During follow-up, 126 of 596 participants (21.1%) treated with placebo and 121 of 598 participants (20.2%) treated with fluoxetine had PHQ-9 scores of 9 or higher (P = .70). A similar proportion of participants with PHQ-9 scores less than 9 at baseline who were treated with fluoxetine hydrochloride and placebo developed PHQ-9 scores of 9 or higher during the trial (placebo, 72 of 488 [14.8%]; and fluoxetine, 63 of 485 [13.0%]; P = .43). A slightly higher number of participants in the placebo group than in the fluoxetine group had a participant-reported clinician diagnosis of depression (42 of 602 [7.0%] vs 26 of 601 [4.3%]; P = .05). By week 26, 14 participants (2.3%) in the placebo group and 12 participants (1.9%) in the fluoxetine group had died (P = .67).

Conclusions and Relevance

Routine daily treatment with 20 mg of fluoxetine did not decrease the proportion of people affected by clinically significant symptoms of depression after a stroke, nor did it affect the proportion of people prescribed an antidepressant or receiving nonpharmacologic treatments compared with placebo.

Trial Registration

http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12611000774921.

Treating Postpartum Depression: What Do We Know about Brexanolone?

Postpartum depression (PPD) is defined as the onset of major depressive disorder in mothers, occurring during pregnancy or within 4 weeks post-delivery. With 7% of pregnancy-related death in the United States owing to mental health conditions, including PPD, and a global prevalence of 12%, PPD is a growing public health concern. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved brexanolone, an exogenous analog of allopregnanolone, as the first ever drug to be specifically indicated for treating patients with PPD. This approval was preceded by an open-label study and three randomized placebo-controlled trials, each assessing the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of brexanolone, using mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score reduction as the primary outcome. In each randomized controlled trial, the drug was administered as an intravenous infusion given over 60 h. Enrolled participants were followed up on days 7 and 30 to evaluate the sustained effect. A statistically significant reduction in mean HAM-D score compared to placebo was observed in all three studies, supporting brexanolone's use in treating moderate-to-severe PPD. Therefore, this article attempts to briefly review the pharmacology of brexanolone, evaluate the latest available clinical data and outcomes concerning its use, reevaluate its position as a 'breakthrough' in managing PPD, and review the cost-related barriers to its worldwide standardized use.

The Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression: A Critical Review of Clinimetric Properties of Different Versions

The format of the original Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) was unstructured: only general instructions were provided for rating individual items. Over the years, a number of modified versions of the HAM-D have been proposed. They differ not only in the number of items, but also in modalities of administration. Structured versions, including item definitions, anchor points and semi-structured or structured interview questions, were developed. This comprehensive review was conducted to examine the clinimetric properties of the different versions of the HAM-D. The aim was to identify the HAM-D versions that best display the clinimetric properties of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. The search was conducted on MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, and yielded a total of 35,473 citations, but only the most representative studies were included. The structured versions of the HAM-D were found to display the highest inter-rater and test-retest reliability. The Clinical Interview for Depression and the 6-item HAM-D showed the highest sensitivity in differentiating active treatment from placebo. The findings indicate that the HAM-D is a valid and sensitive clinimetric index, which should not be discarded in view of obsolete and not clinically relevant psychometric criteria. The HAM-D, however, requires an informed use: unstructured forms should be avoided and the type of HAM-D version that is selected should be specified in the registration of the study protocol and in the methods of the trial.

Associations between Self-Reported Daily Affect Ratings and Sleep Duration during the First Two Weeks of Antidepressant Therapy

Background: In the context of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of augmenting fluoxetine treatment in young adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) using a modified repeated partial sleep deprivation protocol contrasting 2 weeks of restricted time in bed (i.e., 6 h TIB) to no time in bed restriction (i.e., 8 h TIB) the study examines whether sleep duration and the timing of repeated partial sleep deprivation predicts patient-reported affect ratings. Participants: Participants included 58 young adults with DSM-IV-diagnosed MDD. Methods: Daily ratings of affect and sleep were collected during the first 2 weeks of initiating fluoxetine treatment, yielding 630 person-days. Actigraphy monitoring was employed to assess compliance with time in bed condition. Results: Negative affect ratings and positivity ratios in the morning were more improved among participants assigned to the 6 h TIB condition compared to the 8 h TIB group. Participants whose bedtime was delayed by 2-h nightly demonstrated the most significant improvement in negative affect and positivity ratio during the first 2 weeks of fluoxetine therapy. Moreover, the trajectory of morning negative affect ratings in the first 2 weeks was predictive of remission after 4 weeks of fluoxetine therapy. Conclusions: These findings suggest that monitoring changes in daily affect may be a valuable marker of early treatment response in young adults with MDD.

Interventions to improve return to work in depressed people

BACKGROUND

Work disability such as sickness absence is common in people with depression.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until April 4th 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of work-directed and clinical interventions for depressed people that included days of sickness absence or being off work as an outcome. We also analysed the effects on depression and work functioning.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to pool study results in studies we judged to be sufficiently similar.  MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we added 23 new studies. In total, we included 45 studies with 88 study arms, involving 12,109 participants with either a major depressive disorder or a high level of depressive symptoms. Risk of bias The most common types of bias risk were detection bias (27 studies) and attrition bias (22 studies), both for the outcome of sickness absence. Work-directed interventions Work-directed interventions combined with clinical interventions A combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces days of sickness absence within the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.12; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). This translates back to 0.5 fewer (95% CI -0.7 to -0.2) sick leave days in the past two weeks or 25 fewer days during one year (95% CI -37.5 to -11.8). The intervention does not lead to fewer persons being off work beyond one year follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; 2 studies, high-certainty evidence). The intervention may reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.01; 8 studies, low-certainty evidence) and probably has a small effect on work functioning (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.06; 5 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up.  Stand alone work-directed interventions A specific work-directed intervention alone may increase the number of sickness absence days compared with work-directed care as usual (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.74; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence) but probably does not lead to more people being off work within the first year of follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence) or beyond (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.10, 95% -0.30 CI to 0.10; 4 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up and there may be no effect on depressive symptoms beyond that time (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.49; 1 study, low-certainty evidence). The intervention may also not lead to better work functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.26; 1 study, low-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up.   Psychological interventions A psychological intervention, either face-to-face, or an E-mental health intervention, with or without professional guidance, may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.03; 9 studies, low-certainty evidence). It may also reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.15, 8 studies, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether these psychological interventions improve work ability (SMD -0.15 95% CI -0.46 to 0.57; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Psychological intervention combined with antidepressant medication Two studies compared the effect of a psychological intervention combined with antidepressants to antidepressants alone. One study combined psychodynamic therapy with tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) medication and another combined telephone-administered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). We are uncertain if this intervention reduces the number of sickness absence days (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.24; 2 studies, very low-certainty evidence) but found that there may be no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.12; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence). Antidepressant medication only Three studies compared the effectiveness of SSRI to selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medication on reducing sickness absence and yielded highly inconsistent results. Improved care Overall, interventions to improve care did not lead to fewer days of sickness absence, compared to care as usual (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). However, in studies with a low risk of bias, the intervention probably leads to fewer days of sickness absence in the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.05; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Improved care probably leads to fewer depressive symptoms (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.07; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) but may possibly lead to a decrease in work-functioning (SMD 0.5, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Exercise Supervised strength exercise may reduce sickness absence, compared to relaxation (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.68 to -0.54; one study, low-certainty evidence). However, aerobic exercise probably is not more effective than relaxation or stretching (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Both studies found no differences between the two conditions in depressive symptoms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces the number of sickness absence days, but at the end of one year or longer follow-up, this does not lead to more people in the intervention group being at work. The intervention may also reduce depressive symptoms and probably increases work functioning more than care as usual. Specific work-directed interventions may not be more effective than usual work-directed care alone. Psychological interventions may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual. Interventions to improve clinical care probably lead to lower sickness absence and lower levels of depression, compared with care as usual. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on sickness absence of one antidepressant medication compared to another. Further research is needed to assess which combination of work-directed and clinical interventions works best.

Comparison of the efficacy of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) plus agomelatine to ECT plus placebo in treatment-resistant depression

OBJECTIVE

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is commonly used to treat patients with treatment-resistant depression. We aimed to investigate whether combining an antidepressant agent with ECT might enhance therapeutic efficacy and prevent early relapse.

METHOD

During the acute ECT phase, patients (N = 97) with treatment-resistant depression were randomized to receive ECT plus agomelatine 50 mg/day (n = 48) or ECT plus placebo (n = 49). Symptom severity measures, including the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) and other scales, functional impairment, quality of life, neuropsychological tests, adverse events and attitudes toward ECT, were assessed regularly. Remission was defined as a HAMD-17 score ≤7. If patients achieved post-ECT remission, they were prescribed agomelatine 50 mg/day and participated in a 12-week follow-up trial. HAMD-17 was rated at 4-week intervals. Relapse was defined as a HAMD-17 score ≥14, or rehospitalization for a psychiatric reason.

RESULTS

The two treatment groups were comparable at (i) baseline variables; (ii) score changes in all symptom measures, functional impairment, quality of life, and neuropsychological tests; (iii) frequency of adverse events and attitudes toward ECT; and (iv) post-ECT response/remission rates. There were no statistically significant differences following ECT in relapse rates and time to relapse between these two groups.

CONCLUSION

Adding agomelatine to ECT yielded comparable response/remission rates to ECT without agomelatine in the acute ECT phase. Starting agomelatine in combination with ECT did not seem to be more efficacious in preventing relapse than starting agomelatine after the acute ECT course. More research is needed to guide clinical recommendations.

The Ham D6 is more homogenous and as sensitive as the Ham D17

Objective

Using the data of a positive d.b.c.t. comparing an hypericum extract (W55570) to placebo in depressed patients we explored whether the Ham D6 was unidimentional and in case of a positive answer whether the total score was as sensitive as the total score of the Ham D17.

Methods

The study was a 6 weeks double blind placebo controlled trial comparing 300 mg of hypericum t.i.d (n = 186), to placebo (n = 189), in patients with a single or recurrent depression according to DSM-IV. Superiority of hypericum versus placebo on the main outcome criterion (HDRS 17) was already published.

The unidimensionality of the Hamilton depression scale 6 and 17 items were tested using a Mokken scale analysis. The effect size according to the initial severity of depression was calculated on the ITT last observation carried forward population.

Results

The Ham D6, covering the core symptoms of depression was unidimensional, implying that improving this score reflects a true antidepressant effect. The Ham D17 was not unidimensional.

Hypericum was an effective antidepressant in patients with a pre-treatment score of 12 or more (n = 208) on the Ham D6, the effect size was 0.46. No difference with placebo was observed for those with a score of less than 12 (n = 167).

Conclusions

For the evaluation of an antidepressant effect, because of its specificity and sensitivity, the Ham D6 should be used as a primary outcome measure rather than the Ham D17.

Implementation research for public sector mental health care scale-up (SMART-DAPPER): a sequential multiple, assignment randomized trial (SMART) of non-specialist-delivered psychotherapy and/or medication for major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (DAPPER) integrated with outpatient care clinics at a county hospital in Kenya

BACKGROUND

Mental disorders are a leading cause of global disability, driven primarily by depression and anxiety. Most of the disease burden is in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), where 75% of adults with mental disorders have no service access. Our research team has worked in western Kenya for nearly ten years. Primary care populations in Kenya have high prevalence of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). To address these treatment needs with a sustainable, scalable mental health care strategy, we are partnering with local and national mental health stakeholders in Kenya and Uganda to identify 1) evidence-based strategies for first-line and second-line treatment delivered by non-specialists integrated with primary care, 2) investigate presumed mediators of treatment outcome and 3) determine patient-level moderators of treatment effect to inform personalized, resource-efficient, non-specialist treatments and sequencing, with costing analyses. Our implementation approach is guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will use a Sequential, Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) to randomize 2710 patients from the outpatient clinics at Kisumu County Hospital (KCH) who have MDD, PTSD or both to either 12 weekly sessions of non-specialist-delivered Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) or to 6 months of fluoxetine prescribed by a nurse or clinical officer. Participants who are not in remission at the conclusion of treatment will be re-randomized to receive the other treatment (IPT receives fluoxetine and vice versa) or to combination treatment (IPT and fluoxetine). The SMART-DAPPER Implementation Resource Team, (IRT) will drive the application of the EPIS model and adaptations during the course of the study to optimize the relevance of the data for generalizability and scale -up.

DISCUSSION

The results of this research will be significant in three ways: 1) they will determine the effectiveness of non-specialist delivered first- and second-line treatment for MDD and/or PTSD, 2) they will investigate key mechanisms of action for each treatment and 3) they will produce tailored adaptive treatment strategies essential for optimal sequencing of treatment for MDD and/or PTSD in low resource settings with associated cost information - a critical gap for addressing a leading global cause of disability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03466346, registered March 15, 2018.

WITHDRAWN: Psychotherapy for depression among incurable cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The most common psychiatric diagnosis among cancer patients is depression; this diagnosis is even more common among patients with advanced cancer. Psychotherapy is a patient-preferred and promising strategy for treating depression among cancer patients. Several systematic reviews have investigated the effectiveness of psychological treatment for depression among cancer patients. However, the findings are conflicting, and no review has focused on depression among patients with incurable cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of psychotherapy for treating depression among patients with advanced cancer by conducting a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Register, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases in September 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant RCTs comparing any kind of psychotherapy with conventional treatment for adult patients with advanced cancer were eligible for inclusion. Two independent review authors identified relevant studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the original reports using standardized data extraction forms. Two independent review authors also assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies according to the recommendations of a previous systematic review of psychological therapies for cancer patients that utilized ten internal validity indicators. The primary outcome was the standardized mean difference (SMD) of change between the baseline and immediate post-treatment scores.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of ten RCTs (total of 780 participants); data from six studies were used for meta-analyses (292 patients in the psychotherapy arm and 225 patients in the control arm). Among these six studies, four studies used supportive psychotherapy, one adopted cognitive behavioural therapy, and one adopted problem-solving therapy. When compared with treatment as usual, psychotherapy was associated with a significant decrease in depression score (SMD = -0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.08 to -0.80). None of the studies focused on patients with clinically diagnosed depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from RCTs of moderate quality suggest that psychotherapy is useful for treating depressive states in advanced cancer patients. However, no evidence supports the effectiveness of psychotherapy for patients with clinically diagnosed depression.

Nurse-led group cognitive behavioral therapy for major depressive disorder among adults in Japan: A preliminary single-group study

Objectives

The prevalence and burden of disease of depression necessitates effective and accessible treatment options worldwide. Since April 2016, Japanese national health insurance has covered nurse-administered cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for mood disorders. However, empirical support for nurse-led CBT for depression in Asian countries, especially in Japan, is still lacking. This preliminary study aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of nurse-led group CBT for Japanese patients with depression.

Methods

In this single-arm study, we evaluated the effects of a 6-week group CBT, led by trained nurses, on patients with major depression. The primary outcome was the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Assessments were conducted at the beginning and end of the intervention.

Results

Of 25 participants screened, 23 were eligible for the study (of these, three dropped out during the trial but were included in the analysis). Nurse-led group CBT led to significant improvements in the severity of depression (BDI-II, P < 0.001). The mean total BDI-II score improved from 23.1 (SD = 7.56) to 12.4 (SD = 8.57), and the pre-to post-effect size was large (Cohen's d = 1.33). After CBT, 45% of the participants were judged to be treatment responders, and 34% met the remission criteria.

Conclusions

Our preliminary findings indicate that 6 weeks of nurse-led group CBT produced a favorable treatment outcome for individuals with major depression in a Japanese clinical setting. The results of this study might encourage more Asian nurses to provide CBT as a part of their nursing practice. Further controlled trials that address the limitations of this study are required.

A Systematic Review of the Clinimetric Properties of the 6-Item Version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D6)

BACKGROUND

In a study aimed at identifying the items carrying information regarding the global severity of depression, the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D6) was derived from the original 17-item version of the scale (HAM-D17). Since then, the HAM-D6 has been used in a wide range of clinical studies. We now provide a systematic review of the clinimetric properties of HAM-D6 in comparison with those of HAM-D17 and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the literature in PubMed, PsycInfo, and EMBASE databases in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Studies reporting data on the clinimetric validity of the HAM-D6 and either the HAM-D17 or MADRS in non-psychotic unipolar or bipolar depression were included in the synthesis.

RESULTS

The search identified 681 unique records, of which 51 articles met the inclusion criteria. According to the published literature, HAM-D6 has proven to be superior to both HAM-D17 and MADRS in terms of scalability (each item contains unique information regarding syndrome severity), transferability (scalability is constant over time and irrespective of sex, age, and depressive subtypes), and responsiveness (sensitivity to change in severity during treatment).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the published literature, the clinimetric properties of HAM-D6 are superior to those of both the HAM-D17 and MADRS. Since the validity of HAM-D6 has been demonstrated in both research and clinical practice, using the scale more consistently would facilitate translation of results from one setting to the other.

Brexanolone (SAGE-547 injection) in post-partum depression: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Post-partum depression is a serious mood disorder in women that might be triggered by peripartum fluctuations in reproductive hormones. This phase 2 study investigated brexanolone (USAN; formerly SAGE-547 injection), an intravenous formulation of allopregnanolone, a positive allosteric modulator of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA_A) receptors, for the treatment of post-partum depression.

METHODS

For this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled self-referred or physician-referred female inpatients (≤6 months post partum) with severe post-partum depression (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] total score ≥26) in four hospitals in the USA. Eligible women were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation program, to receive either a single, continuous intravenous dose of brexanolone or placebo for 60 h. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignments. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in the 17-item HAM-D total score at 60 h, assessed in all randomised patients who started infusion of study drug or placebo and who had a completed baseline HAM-D assessment and at least one post-baseline HAM-D assessment. Patients were followed up until day 30. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02614547.

FINDINGS

This trial was done between Dec 15, 2015 (first enrolment), and May 19, 2016 (final visit of the last enrolled patient). 21 women were randomly assigned to the brexanolone (n=10) and placebo (n=11) groups. At 60 h, mean reduction in HAM-D total score from baseline was 21·0 points (SE 2·9) in the brexanolone group compared with 8·8 points (SE 2·8) in the placebo group (difference -12·2, 95% CI -20·77 to -3·67; p=0·0075; effect size 1·2). No deaths, serious adverse events, or discontinuations because of adverse events were reported in either group. Four of ten patients in the brexanolone group had adverse events compared with eight of 11 in the placebo group. The most frequently reported adverse events in the brexanolone group were dizziness (two patients in the brexanolone group vs three patients in the placebo group) and somnolence (two vs none). Moderate treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in two patients in the brexanolone group (sinus tachycardia, n=1; somnolence, n=1) and in two patients in the placebo group (infusion site pain, n=1; tension headache, n=1); one patient in the placebo group had a severe treatment-emergent adverse event (insomnia).

INTERPRETATION

In women with severe post-partum depression, infusion of brexanolone resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful reduction in HAM-D total score, compared with placebo. Our results support the rationale for targeting synaptic and extrasynaptic GABA_A receptors in the development of therapies for patients with post-partum depression. A pivotal clinical programme for the investigation of brexanolone in patients with post-partum depression is in progress.

FUNDING

Sage Therapeutics, Inc.

Effects of Restricted Time in Bed on Antidepressant Treatment Response: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Antidepressant response onset is delayed in individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD). This study compared remission rates and time to remission onset for antidepressant medication delivered adjunctively to nightly time in bed (TIB) restriction of 6 hours or 8 hours for the initial 2 weeks.

METHODS

Sixty-eight adults with DSM-IV-diagnosed MDD (mean ± SD age = 25.4 ± 6.6 years, 34 women) were recruited from September 2009 to December 2012 in an academic medical center. Participants received 8 weeks of open-label fluoxetine 20-40 mg and were randomized to 1 of 3 TIB conditions for the first 2 weeks: 8-hour TIB (n = 19); 6-hour TIB with a 2-hour bedtime delay (late bedtime, n = 24); or 6-hour TIB with a 2-hour rise time advance (early rise time, n = 25). Clinicians blinded to TIB condition rated symptom severity weekly. Symptom severity, remission rates, and remission onset as rated by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale were the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Mixed effects models indicated lower depression severity for the 8-hour TIB compared to the 6-hour TIB group overall (F₈, ₂₂₆.₉ = 2.1, P < .05), with 63.2% of 8-hour TIB compared to 32.6% of 6-hour TIB subjects remitting by week 8 (χ²₁ = 4.9, P < .05). Remission onset occurred earlier for the 8-hour TIB group (hazard ratio = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.91; P < .03), with no differences between 6-hour TIB conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Two consecutive weeks of nightly 6-hour TIB does not accelerate or improve antidepressant response. Further research is needed to determine whether adequate sleep opportunity is important to antidepressant treatment response.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01545843.

Fewer study participants needed to demonstrate superior antidepressant efficacy when using the Hamilton melancholia subscale (HAM-D₆) as outcome measure

BACKGROUND

In the development of new antidepressant treatments, the failed study has unfortunately become a prevalent problem. The number of failed studies could probably be reduced significantly by applying more informative outcome measures. Previous studies have indicated that the 6-item melancholia subscale (HAM-D6) of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) may be more informative than other scales, due to its superior psychometric properties. In the present study we investigated whether the HAM-D6 had higher informativeness than the HAM-D17 based on data from a randomized placebo-controlled trial (RCT) testing the effect of erythropoietin (EPO) as augmentation therapy in patients with treatment-resistant depression.

METHODS

We assessed the scalability (Mokken analysis of unidimensionality), responsiveness (item responsiveness analysis) and ability to show drug-placebo separation (estimation of sample size needed to detect statistically significant difference between EPO and placebo) of the HAM-D6 and the HAM-D17.

RESULTS

The HAM-D6 demonstrated higher scalability, higher responsiveness, and better drug-placebo separation compared to the HAM-D17. As a consequence, only 39 participants per group would be required to detect a statistically significant difference between EPO and placebo when using the HAM-D6 as outcome measure, whereas the required group size for HAM-D17 would be 146 participants.

LIMITATIONS

The EPO RCT was not originally designed to investigate the research questions addressed in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Both for ethical and financial reasons it is of interest to minimize the number of participants in clinical trials. Therefore, we suggest employing the HAM-D6 as outcome measure in clinical trials of depression.

An increase in joy after two weeks is more specific of later antidepressant response than a decrease in sadness

BACKGROUND

Early improvement in positive emotions-more than decreases in negative emotions-was highly predictive of treatment response in an ecologically valid prospective manner. This result needs replication with simpler assessments to determine whether it can be translated into clinical practice.

METHODS

2049 adult depressed outpatients receiving agomelatine were assessed at inclusion, week 2, and week 6 using the clinician-rated Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Sheehan Disability Scale, Clinical Global Impression scale, and Multidimensional Assessment of Thymic States (MATHYS), an auto-questionnaire rating the frequency of emotions, including sadness and joy, over the previous week.

RESULTS

Joy and sadness had a relatively low correlation coefficient at baseline (r=-0.277), joy (r=-0.160) being less correlated with clinical severity than sadness (r=0.317). An increase in joy at week 2 had higher specificity (85.04%) and positive predictive value (70.55%) for treatment response than decreased sadness (57.92% and 66.04%, respectively), and the global capacity of the former to predict remission, either clinical (Yule Q coefficient, 39.96%) or functional (44.35%), was even better compared to the prediction of clinical response (37.38%).

LIMITATIONS

MATHYS retrospectively assesses emotions, with five possible ratings only, relying on self-rated frequencies. With only a 6-week follow-up, conclusions are limited to short-term aspects of clinical and functional remission.

CONCLUSIONS

Early improvement in joy during the first 2 weeks of treatment is strongly specific for treatment response and remission. The frequency of joy captures the predictivity and may deserve further study regarding inclusion in depressive rating scales.

From Randomized Controlled Trials of Antidepressant Drugs to the Meta-Analytic Synthesis of Evidence: Methodological Aspects Lead to Discrepant Findings

During the last decade, several meta-analytic studies employing different methodological approaches have had inconsistent conclusions regarding antidepressant efficacy. Herein, we aim to comment on methodological aspects that may have contributed to disparate findings. We initially discuss methodological inconsistencies and limitations related to the conduct of individual antidepressant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including differences in allocated samples, limitations of psychometric scales, possible explanations for the heightened placebo response rates in antidepressant RCTs across the past two decades as well as the reporting of conflicts of interest. In the second part of this article, we briefly describe the various meta-analyses techniques (e.g., simple random effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis) and the application of these methods to synthesize evidence related to antidepressant efficacy. Recently published antidepressant metaanalyses often provide discrepant results and similar results often lead to different interpretations. Finally, we propose strategies to improve methodology considering real-world clinical scenarios.

Interventions to improve return to work in depressed people

BACKGROUND

Work disability such as sickness absence is common in people with depression.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of work-directed and clinical interventions for depressed people that included sickness absence as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to pool study results in the studies we judged to be sufficiently similar. We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies with 26 study arms, involving 5996 participants with either a major depressive disorder or a high level of depressive symptoms. We judged 14 studies to have a high risk of bias and nine to have a low risk of bias. Work-directed interventions We identified five work-directed interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that a work-directed intervention added to a clinical intervention reduced sickness absence (SMD -0.40; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.14; 3 studies) compared to a clinical intervention alone.There was moderate quality evidence based on a single study that enhancing the clinical care in addition to regular work-directed care was not more effective than work-directed care alone (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.21).There was very low quality evidence based on one study that regular care by occupational physicians that was enhanced with an exposure-based return to work program did not reduce sickness absence compared to regular care by occupational physicians (non-significant finding: SMD 0.45; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.91). Clinical interventions, antidepressant medication Three studies compared the effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medication on reducing sickness absence and yielded highly inconsistent results. Clinical interventions, psychological We found moderate quality evidence based on three studies that telephone or online cognitive behavioural therapy was more effective in reducing sick leave than usual primary or occupational care (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.01). Clinical interventions, psychological combined with antidepressant medication We found low quality evidence based on two studies that enhanced primary care did not substantially decrease sickness absence in the medium term (4 to 12 months) (SMD -0.02; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12). A third study found no substantial effect on sickness absence in favour of this intervention in the long term (24 months).We found high quality evidence, based on one study, that a structured telephone outreach and care management program was more effective in reducing sickness absence than usual care (SMD - 0.21; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.05). Clinical interventions, exercise We found low quality evidence based on one study that supervised strength exercise reduced sickness absence compared to relaxation (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.68 to -0.54). We found moderate quality evidence based on two studies that aerobic exercise was no more effective in reducing sickness absence than relaxation or stretching (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate quality evidence that adding a work-directed intervention to a clinical intervention reduced the number of days on sick leave compared to a clinical intervention alone. We also found moderate quality evidence that enhancing primary or occupational care with cognitive behavioural therapy reduced sick leave compared to the usual care. A structured telephone outreach and care management program that included medication reduced sickness absence compared to usual care. However, enhancing primary care with a quality improvement program did not have a considerable effect on sickness absence. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on sickness absence of one antidepressant medication compared to another. More studies are needed on work-directed interventions. Clinical intervention studies should also include work outcomes to increase our knowledge on reducing sickness absence in depressed workers.

Brief, unidimensional melancholia rating scales are highly sensitive to the effect of citalopram and may have biological validity: implications for the research domain criteria (RDoC)

BACKGROUND

Most depression rating scales are multidimensional and the resulting heterogeneity may impede identification of coherent biomarkers. The aim of this study was to compare the psychometric performance of the multidimensional 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) and the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-C30) to that of their unidimensional six-item melancholia subscales (HAM-D6 and IDS-C6).

METHODS

A total of 2242 subjects from level 1 (citalopram) of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR* study were included in the analysis. Symptom change, response and remission rates were compared for HAM-D6 versus HAM-D17 and for IDS-C6 versus IDS-C30. The changes in total scores on these scales were compared to the change in Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (QLES-Q) score using correlation analysis.

RESULTS

The response to treatment was significantly greater according to the HAM-D6 and IDS-C6. Furthermore, the correlation of changes in depression-ratings with changes in QLES-Q scores were comparable for the subscales and full scales.

LIMITATIONS

STAR*D was not designed to answer the research questions addressed in this analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that the HAM-D6 and IDS-C6 melancholia scales capture a coherent construct in depression. The syndrome reflected in these scales is unidimensional, sensitive to specific pharmacological intervention, and therefore likely to have biological validity. We therefore believe that "melancholia" thus defined could be a valuable construct under the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), which specifically aims at identifying the neurobiology underlying mental disorders and providing drugable targets.

Evidence-based, pharmacological treatment guideline for depression in Korea, revised edition

This paper aims to introduce, summarize, and emphasize the importance of the 'Evidence-Based, Pharmacological Treatment Guideline for Depression in Korea, Revised Edition'. The guideline broadly covers most aspects of the pharmacological treatment of patients in Korea diagnosed with moderate to severe major depression according to the DSM-IV TR. The guideline establishment process involved determining and answering a number of key questions, searching and selecting publications, evaluating recommendations, preparing guideline drafts, undergoing external expert reviews, and obtaining approval. A guideline adaptation process was conducted for the revised edition. The guideline strongly recommends pharmacological treatment considered appropriate to the current clinical situation in Korea, and should be considered helpful when selecting the appropriate pharmacological treatment of patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder. Therefore, the wide distribution of this guideline is recommended.

Burning issues in the meta-analysis of pharmaceutical trials for depression

During the last decade a number of meta-analytic studies have been published and they triggered a debate on the true clinical usefulness of antidepressants. The current article comments on problems within the randomized controlled trials design, the study samples, the psychometric scales, the methods of meta-analysis, the interpretation of the results, and the reporting of conflicts of interest. Although the meta-analyses published so far agree that medication works in severe depression, they question its efficacy in mild cases. However, several methodological issues should be clarified before conclusions are definite. Different methods give different results and similar results seem to entertain a variety of interpretations. In the future it is important to address all of these problems, and to improve methodology on the basis of clinically informed choices. Otherwise, meta-analysis risks alienation from clinical reality and thus risks becoming the 21(st) century psychoanalysis.

Efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of bupropion for major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials comparison with venlafaxine

Background

Bupropion and venlafaxine are effective antidepressants with unique pharmacological profiles.

Objectives

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of bupropion and venlafaxine therapies for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). The authors searched clinical trials with low risk of bias, performed from January 1985 to February 2013.

Data sources

The searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were conducted in February 2013. Included populations consisted of adult patients with MDD or major depression.

Study eligible criteria, participants, and interventions

Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bupropion and venlafaxine in adult patients with MDD and offering endpoint results relevant to: (1) severity of depression; (2) response rate; (3) remission rate; (4) overall discontinuation rate; or (5) discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Limitation of language was not utilized.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

The abstracts located from the electronic databases were reviewed. The completed reports from pertinent studies were examined, and essential data were extracted. Based on the Cochrane’s bias assessment, risks of bias were assessed. Any study with two risks or more was excluded. Efficacious outcomes included the mean changed scores of rating scales for depression, overall response rates, and overall remission rates. Acceptability was determined by the overall discontinuation rates. The discontinuation rates due to adverse events were the measurement of tolerability. Relative risks (RR) and weighted mean differences or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using a random effect model.

Results

A total of 1,117 participants in three RCTs were included. Depression rating scales used in one and two studies were the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale, respectively. The pooled mean changed scores of the bupropion-treated group were comparable to those of the venlafaxine-treated group with standardized mean differences (95% CI) of 0.05 (−0.16 to 0.26). The overall response and remission rates were similar with the RRs (95% CI) of 0.92 (0.79–1.08) and 0.97 (0.75–1.24), respectively. The pooled overall discontinuation rate and discontinuation rate due to adverse events were not different between groups with the RRs (95% CI) of 1.00 (0.80–1.26) and 0.69 (0.44–1.10), respectively.

Limitations

The small number of RCTs included in the meta-analysis.

Conclusion

According to the limited data obtained from three RCTs, bupropion XL is as effective and tolerable as venlafaxine XR for adult patients with MDD. Further studies in this area should be conducted to confirm these findings.

No role for initial severity on the efficacy of antidepressants: results of a multi-meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade, a number of meta-analyses questioned the clinically relevant efficacy of antidepressants. Part of the debate concerned the method used in each of these meta-analyses as well as the quality of the data set.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Kirsch data set was analysed with a number of different methods, and eight key questions were tackled. We fit random effects models in both Bayesian and frequentist statistical frameworks using raw mean difference and standardised mean difference scales. We also compare between-study heterogeneity estimates and produce treatment rank probabilities for all antidepressants. The role of the initial severity is further examined using meta-regression methods.

RESULTS

The results suggest that antidepressants have a standardised effect size equal to 0.34 which is lower but comparable to the effect of antipsychotics in schizophrenia and acute mania. The raw HDRS difference from placebo is 2.82 with the value of 3 included in the confidence interval (2.21-3.44). No role of initial severity was found after partially controlling for the effect of structural (mathematical) coupling. Although data are not definite, even after controlling for baseline severity, there is a strong possibility that venlafaxine is superior to fluoxetine, with the other two agents positioned in the middle. The decrease in the difference between the agent and placebo in more recent studies in comparison to older ones is attributed to baseline severity alone.

DISCUSSION

The results reported here conclude the debate on the efficacy of antidepressants and suggest that antidepressants are clearly superior to placebo. They also suggest that baseline severity cannot be utilized to dictate whether the treatment should include medication or not. Suggestions like this, proposed by guidelines or institutions (e.g. the NICE), should be considered mistaken.

A review of current evidence for vilazodone in major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVES

This review is to inform clinicians of currently available data on vilazodone for treating patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), focusing on its differential action mechanism and extended clinical utility.

METHODS

A data search was conducted in June 2012 using the PubMed/ MEDLINE/relevant clinical trial databases with the key terms "vilazodone" or "Viibryd."

RESULTS

The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of vilazodone have been demonstrated in two pivotal 8-week, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies. Certain pharmacological characteristics of vilazodone were observed, including early onset of action, fewer sexual side effects, the absence of known cardiac toxicity, and minimal effect on weight gain, that may provide potential clinical advantages compared with currently available antidepressants. However, such possibilities should be replicated and confirmed in more well-designed and adequately powered clinical trials. Vilazodone requires dose titration up to 2 weeks to reach a target dose of 40 mg/d due to high rate of gastrointestinal side effects. No direct comparative studies with other antidepressants are currently available to confirm the aforementioned potential clinical utility.

CONCLUSION

Vilazodone is a newer antidepressant possessing different action mechanisms compared to currently available antidepressants but whether it has superiority to other class of antidepressants in terms of efficacy and safety should still warrant further evaluation through more well-controlled and direct comparison clinical trials.

Eicosapentaenoic acid versus docosahexaenoic acid in mild-to-moderate depression: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Controversy exists as to whether eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or both are responsible for the efficacy of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in depression. We conducted a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-arm, parallel-group trial, comparing the efficacy of EPA versus DHA as adjuvants to maintenance medication treatments for mild-to-moderate depression. Eighty-one mild-to-moderately depressed outpatients were randomly assigned to receive either 1g/d of EPA or DHA or placebo (coconut oil) for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) final score in the modified intention-to-treat population, which comprised of all randomized patients with at least 1 post-randomization observation (n=62; 61.3% female; mean age 35.1 ± 1.2 years). Allocated treatments were well tolerated. Although there was no significant difference between groups at baseline, patients in the EPA group showed a significantly lower mean HDRS score at study endpoint compared with those in the DHA (p<0.001) or placebo (p=0.002) groups. Furthermore, response to treatment (defined as a ≥ 50% decrease from the baseline HDRS score) was only observed in 6 patients receiving EPA, while no one in any of DHA or placebo groups responded to treatment. Overall, these data suggest greater efficacy of EPA compared to DHA or placebo as an adjunctive treatment in mild-to-moderate depression. However, further, randomized controlled trials are needed to support these findings.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders, part 1: update 2013 on the acute and continuation treatment of unipolar depressive disorders

OBJECTIVES

This 2013 update of the practice guidelines for the biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders was developed by an international Task Force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP). The goal has been to systematically review all available evidence pertaining to the treatment of unipolar depressive disorders, and to produce a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful based on the available evidence. The guidelines are intended for use by all physicians seeing and treating patients with these conditions.

METHODS

The 2013 update was conducted by a systematic update literature search and appraisal. All recommendations were approved by the Guidelines Task Force.

RESULTS

This first part of the guidelines (Part 1) covers disease definition, classification, epidemiology, and course of unipolar depressive disorders, as well as the management of the acute and continuation phase treatment. It is primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antidepressants, other psychopharmacological medications, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, adjunctive and novel therapeutic strategies) of adults.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, there is a variety of evidence-based antidepressant treatment options available. Nevertheless there is still a substantial proportion of patients not achieving full remission. In addition, somatic and psychiatric comorbidities and other special circumstances need to be more thoroughly investigated. Therefore, further high-quality informative randomized controlled trials are urgently needed.

The media and intellectuals' response to medical publications: the antidepressants' case

During the last decade, there was a debate concerning the true efficacy of antidepressants. Several papers were published in scientific journals, but many articles were also published in the lay press and the internet both by medical scientists and academics from other disciplines or representatives of societies or initiatives. The current paper analyzes the articles authored by three representative opinion makers: one academic in medicine, one academic in philosophical studies, and a representative of an activists' group against the use of antidepressants. All three articles share similar gaps in knowledge and understanding of the scientific data and also are driven by an 'existential-like' ideology. In our opinion, these articles have misinterpreted the scientific data, and they as such may misinform or mislead the general public and policy makers, which could have a potential impact upon public health. It seems that this line of thought represents another aspect of the stigma attached to people suffering from mental illness.

Is it worth assessing progress as early as week 2 to adapt antidepressive treatment strategy? Results from a study on agomelatine and a global meta-analysis

CONTEXT

A delay of 4-8weeks before modifying the prescribed antidepressant treatment is usually proposed when incomplete treatment response is observed. A number of studies nevertheless proposed that the lack of early improvement (usually 20% decrease of severity at week 2) is predictive of the absence of subsequent treatment response, potentially saving weeks of inadequate treatment, but with no information for non-interventional studies devoted to outpatients.

METHOD

Two thousand nine hundred and thirty-eight outpatients with major depressive disorder were included in a multicentre, non-interventional study, assessing at inclusion, week 2 and week 6, mood (QIDS-C, CGI, PGI and VAS) sleep (LSEQ) and functionality (SDS). All metrics at week 2 were tested for their capacity to predict response (and then remission) at week 6, all patients being treated by agomelatine. A meta-analysis of all studies (n=12) assessing the predictive role of improvement at week 2 was also performed, assessing specific effect size of published studies and the weight of the different parameters they used.

RESULTS

The QIDS-C and the CGI-I were the only instruments with an area under the curve over 0.7, with different cut-offs for treatment response and remission. A decrease of more than five points at the QIDS-C had the highest positive predictive value for treatment response, and a CGI-I over three had the highest negative predictive value, which would favour relying on the clinicians for warning (too high CGI-I), and on instruments for confidence (favourable decrease of the QIDS-C). The meta-analysis of all studies also detected a large effect size of early improvement, stressing how rating week 2 severity could be beneficial in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous reports stressing the interest of an assessment at week 2 were reinforced by the present results, which also defined more accurately what could be the most appropriate cut-offs, and how combining these early results could be more effective.

Psychometric properties of responses by clinicians and older adults to a 6-item Hebrew version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D6)

BACKGROUND

The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) is commonly used as a screening instrument, as a continuous measure of change in depressive symptoms over time, and as a means to compare the relative efficacy of treatments. Among several abridged versions, the 6-item HAM-D6 is used most widely in large degree because of its good psychometric properties. The current study compares both self-report and clinician-rated versions of the Hebrew version of this scale.

METHODS

A total of 153 Israelis 75 years of age on average participated in this study. The HAM-D(6) was examined using confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) models separately for both patient and clinician responses.

RESULTS

Responses to the HAM-D(6) suggest that this instrument measures a unidimensional construct with each of the scales' six items contributing significantly to the measurement. Comparisons between self-report and clinician versions indicate that responses do not significantly differ for 4 of the 6 items. Moreover, 100% sensitivity (and 91% specificity) was found between patient HAM-D6 responses and clinician diagnoses of depression.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that the Hebrew HAM-D(6) can be used to measure and screen for depressive symptoms among elderly patients.

Efficacy versus effectiveness: a direct comparison of the outcome of treatment for mild to moderate depression in randomized controlled trials and daily practice

BACKGROUND

Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to give the most reliable information on treatment outcome (efficacy). Yet, the generalizability of efficacy results to daily practice (effectiveness) might be diminished by the design of RCTs. The STAR*D trial approached daily practice as much as possible, but still has some properties of an RCT. In this study, we compare results from treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in routine clinical practice to those of RCTs and STAR*D.

METHODS

Effectiveness in routine clinical practice was compared with efficacy results from 15 meta-analyses on antidepressant, psychotherapeutic and combination treatment and results from STAR*D. Data on daily practice patients and treatments were derived from a routine outcome monitoring (ROM) system. Treatment outcome was defined as proportion of remitters (MADRS ≤10) and within-group effect size.

RESULTS

From ROM, 598 patients suffering from a MDD episode according to the MINI-plus were included. Remission percentages were lower in routine practice than in meta-analyses for all treatment modalities (32 vs.40-74%). Differences were less explicit for antidepressants (21 vs. 34-47%) than for individual psychotherapy (27 vs. 34-58%; effect size 0.85 vs. 1.71) and combination therapy (21 vs. 45-63%), since only 60% of the meta-analyses for antidepressants showed significant differences with ROM, while for psychotherapy and combination treatment almost all meta-analyses showed significant differences. No differences in effectiveness were found between routine practice and STAR*D (antidepressants 27 vs. 28%; individual psychotherapy 27 vs. 25%; combination treatment 21 vs. 23%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Effectiveness of treatment for mild-to-moderate MDD in daily practice is similar to STAR*D and significantly lower than efficacy results from RCTs.

Sensitivity to changes during antidepressant treatment: a comparison of unidimensional subscales of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-C) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) in patients with mild major, minor or subsyndromal depression

In the efficacy evaluation of antidepressant treatments, the total score of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) is still regarded as the 'gold standard'. We previously had shown that the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS) was more sensitive to detect depressive symptom changes than the HAMD17 (Helmreich et al. 2011). Furthermore, studies suggest that the unidimensional subscales of the HAMD, which capture the core depressive symptoms, outperform the full HAMD regarding the detection of antidepressant treatment effects. The aim of the present study was to compare several unidimensional subscales of the HAMD and the IDS regarding their sensitivity to changes in depression symptoms in a sample of patients with mild major, minor or subsyndromal depression (MIND). Biweekly IDS-C28 and HAMD17 data from 287 patients of a 10-week randomised, placebo-controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of sertraline and cognitive-behavioural group therapy in patients with MIND were converted to subscale scores and analysed during the antidepressant treatment course. We investigated sensitivity to depressive change for all scales from assessment-to-assessment, in relation to depression severity level and placebo-verum differences. The subscales performed similarly during the treatment course, with slight advantages for some subscales in detecting treatment effects depending on the treatment modality and on the items included. Most changes in depressive symptomatology were detected by the IDS short scale, but regarding the effect sizes, it performed worse than most subscales. Unidimensional subscales are a time- and cost-saving option in judging drug therapy outcomes, especially in antidepressant treatment efficacy studies. However, subscales do not cover all facets of depression (e.g. atypical symptoms, sleep disturbances), which might be important for comprehensively understanding the nature of the disease depression. Therefore, the cost-to-benefit ratio must be carefully assessed in the decision for using unidimensional subscales.

Antidepressant drugs and the response in the placebo group: the real problem lies in our understanding of the issue

In a recent paper, Horder and colleagues (Horder et al., 2010, J Psychopharmacol 25: 1277-1288) have suggested that the mainproblem in the Kirsch analysis is methodological. We argue that the results are similar irrespective of the method used. In our opinion the data suggest that placebo and drug effects are non-additive: antidepressants act independently of depression severity, while the placebo effect is present only in milder cases. While the response in the placebo group is due to unstable 'noise' and 'artefacts', the medication effect is reliable, valid and stable.

[Considerations about the efficacy of psychopharmacological drugs]

Current systematic reviews yielded relatively small efficacy effect sizes of different psychopharmacological agents compared to placebo. It seems that these effect sizes have decreased compared to earlier meta-analyses. We speculate about factors explaining the decrease of effect size such as lower methodological requirements for earlier randomised controlled trials, but in particular enormous methodological problems of current trials such as chronic patient populations, exclusion of severely ill patients by the protocols, sponsoring by the pharmaceutical industry and so-called professional patients. A few examples from general medicine are used to illustrate that the effect sizes of other medications are often also surprisingly small. Psychotropic drugs are efficacious, but they need to be prudently applied according to evidence-based criteria.

Putting the efficacy of psychiatric and general medicine medication into perspective: review of meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of psychopharmacological treatments has been called into question. Psychiatrists are unfamiliar with the effectiveness of common medical drugs.

AIMS

To put the efficacy of psychiatric drugs into the perspective of that of major medical drugs.

METHOD

We searched Medline and the Cochrane Library for systematic reviews on the efficacy of drugs compared with placebo for common medical and psychiatric disorders, and systematically presented the effect sizes for primary efficacy outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 94 meta-analyses (48 drugs in 20 medical diseases, 16 drugs in 8 psychiatric disorders). There were some general medical drugs with clearly higher effect sizes than the psychotropic agents, but the psychiatric drugs were not generally less efficacious than other drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Any comparison of different outcomes in different diseases can only serve the purpose of a qualitative perspective. The increment of improvement by drug over placebo must be viewed in the context of the disease's seriousness, suffering induced, natural course, duration, outcomes, adverse events and societal values.

Multiscale assessment of treatment efficacy in adults with ADHD: a randomized placebo-controlled, multi-centre study with extended-release methylphenidate

OBJECTIVES

This trial was performed to test the efficacy and safety of an extended-release formulation of methylphenidate (MPH ER).

METHODS

A total of 162 adults with ADHD according to DSM-IV were treated for 8 weeks with either two daily individually body weight-adjusted doses of MPH ER up to 1 mg/kg per day (N = 84) or placebo (N = 78). The primary efficacy outcome was the Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale (WRAADDS) 8 weeks after randomization. Secondary efficacy measures were the ADHD Diagnostic Checklist (ADHD-DC), the Conners Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale (CAARS-S:L), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS).

RESULTS

At week 8 a significantly higher decline of the total WRAADDS score was found in the MPH ER group as compared to the placebo group (P = 0.0003). The rates of responders were 50% in the MPH ER and 18% in the placebo group (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, similar effects were observed for the secondary efficacy variable: ADHD-DC score (P = 0.004), CAARS-S:L score (P = 0.008) and the SDS score (P = 0.017). 50% of the MPH ER group and 24.4% of the placebo group were improved "much" or "very much" according to the CGI rating (P = 0.0001). MPH ER treatment was well tolerated. At week 2 also the mean heart rate was significantly higher in the MPH ER group as compared to the placebo group (P = 0.01). No differences between the study groups were observed regarding mean blood pressure at any visit.

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical trial demonstrated statistically significant and clinical relevant effects of MPH ER in adults with ADHD for several self- and investigator-rated ADHD psychopathology and also functional efficacy measures.

Efficacy and tolerability of the novel triple reuptake inhibitor amitifadine in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Amitifadine (EB-1010, formerly DOV 21,947) is a serotonin-preferring triple reuptake inhibitor with a relative potency to inhibit serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine uptake of ∼1:2:8, respectively. This 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of amitifadine in 63 patients with major depressive disorder. Eligible patients (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAMD-17] ≥ 22 at baseline) were randomized to amitifadine 25 mg twice daily (BID) for 2 weeks, then 50 mg BID for 4 weeks or placebo. Mean baseline scores in the modified intent-to-treat population (n = 56) were 31.4 for the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), 29.6 for the HAMD-17, and 25.4 for the Derogatis Interview for Sexual Functioning - Self Report (DISF-SR). At the end of the 6-week double-blind treatment, estimated least squares mean change from baseline (mixed-model repeated measures [MMRM]) in MADRS total score was statistically significantly superior for amitifadine compared to placebo (18.2 vs. 22.0; p = 0.028), with an overall statistical effect size of -0.601 (Cohen's d). Amitifadine also was statistically significantly superior to placebo (p = 0.03) for the Clinical Global Impression of Change - Improvement. An anhedonia factor score grouping of MADRS Items 1 (apparent sadness), 2 (reported sadness), 6 (concentration difficulties), 7 (lassitude), and 8 (inability to feel) demonstrated a statistically significant difference in favor of amitifadine compared to placebo (p = 0.049). No differences were observed between treatments in DISF-SR scores. Amitifadine was well-tolerated. Two patients on each treatment discontinued the study early due to adverse events; however, no serious adverse events were reported. This initial clinical trial in patients with severe major depression demonstrated significant antidepressant activity with amitifadine, including attenuating symptoms of anhedonia, and a tolerability profile that was comparable to placebo. The efficacy and tolerability of amitifadine for major depressive disorder are being investigated in additional clinical trials.

Efficacy of antidepressants: a re-analysis and re-interpretation of the Kirsch data

Recently there has been much debate on the true usefulness of antidepressant therapy especially after the publication of a meta-analysis by Kirsch et al. (PLoS Medicine 2008, 5, e45). The aim of the current paper was to recalculate and re-interpret the data of that study. Effect-size and mean-score changes were calculated for each agent separately as well as pooled effect sizes and mean changes on the basis of the data reported by Kirsch et al. The weighted mean improvement was (depending on the method of calculation) 10.04 or 10.16 points on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) in the drug groups, instead of 9.60, and thus the correct drug-placebo difference is 2.18 or 2.68 instead of 1.80. Kirsch et al. failed to report that that the change in HAMD score was 3.15 or 3.47 points for venlafaxine and 3.12 or 3.22 for paroxetine, which are above the NICE threshold. Still the figures for fluoxetine and nefazodone are low. Thus it seems that the Kirsch et al.'s meta-analysis suffered from important flaws in the calculations; reporting of the results was selective and conclusions unjustified and overemphasized. Overall the results suggest that although a large percentage of the placebo response is due to expectancy this is not true for the active drug and effects are not additive. The drug effect is always present and is unrelated to depression severity, while this is not true for placebo.

Cognitive behavioral therapy for depression among adults in Japanese clinical settings: a single-group study

Background

Empirical support for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for treating Japanese patients with major depression is lacking, therefore, a feasibility study of CBT for depression in Japanese clinical settings is urgently required.

Findings

A culturally adapted, 16-week manualized individual CBT program for Japanese patients with major depressive disorder was developed. A total of 27 patients with major depression were enrolled in a single-group study with the purpose of testing the feasibility of the program. Twenty six patients (96%) completed the study. The mean total score on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) for all patients (Intention-to-treat sample) improved from 32.6 to 11.7, with a mean change of 20.8 (95% confidence interval: 17.0 to 24.8). Within-group effect size at the endpoint assessment was 2.64 (Cohen's d). Twenty-one patients (77.7%) showed treatment response and 17 patients (63.0%) achieved remission at the end of the program. Significant improvement was observed in measurement of subjective and objective depression severity (assessed by BDI-II, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Rated, and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale), dysfunctional attitude (assessed by Dysfunctional Attitude Scale), global functioning (assessed by Global Assessment of Functioning of DSM-IV) and subjective well-being (assessed by WHO Subjective Well-being Inventory) (all p values < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our manualized treatment comprised of a 16-week individual CBT program for major depression appears feasible and may achieve favorable treatment outcomes among Japanese patients with major depression. Further research involving a larger sample in a randomized, controlled trial design is warranted.

Trial registration

UMIN-CTR UMIN000002542.

Is the antidepressive effect of second-generation antidepressants a myth?

Two recent meta-analyses on second-generation antidepressants versus placebo in mild to moderate forms of major depression, based on data on all randomized clinical trials using the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) submitted to FDA, have shown an effect size of approximately 0.30 in favour of antidepressants in the acute therapy of major depression. The clinical significance of an effect size at this level was found to be so poor that these meta-analyses have subscribed to the myth of an exclusively placebo-like effect of second-generation antidepressants. A re-allocation of HAMD items focusing on those items measuring severity of clinical depression, the HAMD6, has identified effect sizes of >or=0.40 for second-generation antidepressants in placebo-controlled trials for which even a dose-response relationship can be demonstrated. In the relapse-prevention phase during continuation therapy of patients with major depression, the advantage of second-generation antidepressants over placebo was as significant as in the acute therapy phase. To explore a myth is not to deny the facts but rather to re-allocate them.

Psychological benefits 2 and 4 weeks after a single treatment with near infrared light to the forehead: a pilot study of 10 patients with major depression and anxiety

Background

Many studies have reported beneficial effects from the application of near-infrared (NIR) light photobiomodulation (PBM) to the body, and one group has reported beneficial effects applying it to the brain in stroke patients. We have reported that the measurement of a patient's left and right hemispheric emotional valence (HEV) may clarify data and guide lateralized treatments. We sought to test whether a NIR treatment could 1. improve the psychological status of patients, 2. show a relationship between immediate psychological improvements when HEV was taken into account, and 3. show an increase in frontal pole regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF), and 4. be applied without side effects.

Methods

We gave 10 patients, (5 M/5 F) with major depression, including 9 with anxiety, 7 with a past history of substance abuse (6 with an opiate abuse and 1 with an alcohol abuse history), and 3 with post traumatic stress disorder, a baseline standard diagnostic interview, a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), a Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), and a Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). We then gave four 4-minute treatments in a random order: NIR to left forehead at F3, to right forehead at F4, and placebo treatments (light off) at the same sites. Immediately following each treatment we repeated the PANAS, and at 2-weeks and at 4-weeks post treatment we repeated all 3 rating scales. During all treatments we recorded total hemoglobin (cHb), as a measure of rCBF with a commercial NIR spectroscopy device over the left and the right frontal poles of the brain.

Results

At 2-weeks post treatment 6 of 10 patients had a remission (a score ≤ 10) on the HAM-D and 7 of 10 achieved this on the HAM-A. Patients experienced highly significant reductions in both HAM-D and HAM-A scores following treatment, with the greatest reductions occurring at 2 weeks. Mean rCBF across hemispheres increased from 0.011 units in the off condition to 0.043 units in the on condition, for a difference of 0.032 (95% CI: -0.016, 0.080) units, though this result did not reach statistical significance. Immediately after treatment the PANAS improved to a significantly greater extent with NIR "on" relative to NIR "off" when a hemisphere with more positive HEV was treated than when one with more negative HEV was treated. We observed no side effects.

Conclusion

This small feasibility study suggests that NIR-PBM may have utility for the treatment of depression and other psychiatric disorders and that double blind randomized placebo-controlled trials are indicated.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00961454

Applied psychometrics in clinical psychiatry: the pharmacopsychometric triangle

OBJECTIVE

To consider applied psychometrics in psychiatry as a discipline focusing on pharmacopsychology rather than psychopharmacology as illustrated by the pharmacopsychometric triangle.

METHOD

The pharmacopsychological dimensions of clinically valid effects of drugs (antianxiety, antidepressive, antimanic, and antipsychotic), of clinically unwanted effects of these drugs, and the patients' own subjective perception of the balance between wanted and unwanted effects are analysed using rating scales assessed by modern psychometric tests (item response theory models)

RESULTS

Symptom rating scales fulfilling the item response theory models have been shown to be psychometrically valid outcome scales as their total scores are sufficient statistics for demonstrating dose-response relationship within the various classes of antianxiety, antidepressive, antimanic or antipsychotic drugs. The total scores of side-effect rating scales are, however, not sufficient statistics, implying that each symptom has to be analysed individually. Self-rating scales with very few items appear to be sufficient statistics when measuring the patients' own perception of quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Applied psychometrics in psychiatry have been found to cover a pharmacopsychometric triangle illustrating the measurements of wanted and unwanted effects of pharmacotherapeutic drugs as well as health-related quality of life.

How do general practitioners in Thailand diagnose and treat patients presenting with anxiety and depression?

AIMS

To examine general practitioners' (GPs') diagnosis of a case vignette presenting both anxiety and depression symptoms, and to understand their treatment preferences for the case.

METHODS

A total of 1193 copies of a questionnaire were sent to doctors in primary care settings throughout Thailand. The questionnaire inquired about GPs' demographic information and training background, as well as common psychiatric diagnoses and drug prescriptions to patients in their practise. A case vignette of a patient presenting both anxiety and depression symptoms was then given, and GPs were asked to describe their diagnosis and treatment preferences. For comparison, postal questionnaires of the same case vignette were also sent to 40 psychiatrists practising in general hospitals, asking their opinion about the diagnosis and treatment preferences.

RESULTS

A total of 434 questionnaires (36.4%) were returned. GPs reported that 37.7% of their patients suffered from anxiety disorders while 28.4% suffered from depressive disorders. For the patient in the case vignette, GPs made a diagnosis of anxiety disorders (53.5%) more often than depressive disorders (31.9%), whereas the psychiatrists at the general hospitals made a diagnosis of depressive disorders (54%) more often than anxiety disorders (9.1%). One-third of the GPs prescribed only anxiolytics, while 15.4% prescribed only antidepressants. The most commonly prescribed antidepressant by GPs was amitriptyline, which 93% of GPs used at a dosage below 50 mg/day. Only 5.8% of them prescribed fluoxetine as antidepressant. The most frequently prescribed anxiolytic drug was diazepam (65.4%). The most common combination of drugs prescribed was amitriptyline and diazepam (38.7%).

CONCLUSION

Compared to psychiatrists, GPs were more likely to diagnose anxiety than depression in patients with the same set of symptoms. They also preferred to use amitriptyline to treat depression, and prescribed the drug at a low dose. GPs in Thailand should be encouraged to prescribe fluoxetine for treatment of depression because it is safer and more convenient to use than tricyclic antidepressants.

Psychotherapy for depression among incurable cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The most common psychiatric diagnosis among cancer patients is depression; this diagnosis is even more common among patients with advanced cancer. Psychotherapy is a patient-preferred and promising strategy for treating depression among cancer patients. Several systematic reviews have investigated the effectiveness of psychological treatment for depression among cancer patients. However, the findings are conflicting, and no review has focused on depression among patients with incurable cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of psychotherapy for treating depression among patients with advanced cancer by conducting a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Register, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases in September 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant RCTs comparing any kind of psychotherapy with conventional treatment for adult patients with advanced cancer were eligible for inclusion. Two independent review authors identified relevant studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the original reports using standardized data extraction forms. Two independent review authors also assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies according to the recommendations of a previous systematic review of psychological therapies for cancer patients that utilized ten internal validity indicators. The primary outcome was the standardized mean difference (SMD) of change between the baseline and immediate post-treatment scores.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of ten RCTs (total of 780 participants); data from six studies were used for meta-analyses (292 patients in the psychotherapy arm and 225 patients in the control arm). Among these six studies, four studies used supportive psychotherapy, one adopted cognitive behavioural therapy, and one adopted problem-solving therapy. When compared with treatment as usual, psychotherapy was associated with a significant decrease in depression score (SMD = -0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.08 to -0.80). None of the studies focused on patients with clinically diagnosed depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from RCTs of moderate quality suggest that psychotherapy is useful for treating depressive states in advanced cancer patients. However, no evidence supports the effectiveness of psychotherapy for patients with clinically diagnosed depression.

[A reply to Perron regarding the Inserm report "Psychotherapy. The assessment of three approaches"]

The publication of the report by experts from Inserm (France) about the efficacy of psychotherapies (2004) has raised many criticisms, mainly from psychoanalysts. The criticisms of Perron, Brusset, Baruch and Emmanuelli, professors of psychology, published on Internet (www.techniques-psychotherapiques.org) in 2004, attack the methodology that they say introduced numerous biases in favour of cognitive behaviour therapies (CBT) compared to psychodynamic psychotherapies (PP). In order to argue against these criticisms, I have selected ten points raised by this group that seemed to represent the essence of their criticisms. Perron et al. say that the Inserm report is neither objective nor scientific; although this report cannot be fully objective due to its narrative nature, it is, nevertheless, based on empirical studies that satisfy scientific criteria for quality and that are well documented. * Perron et al. suggest that the Inserm report contains numerous biases; it is not possible to avoid all statistical biases so this criticism is an attack on accepted scientific methodology. * Perron et al. do not provide any evidence in favour of their criticism that the meta-analyses included in the report have accumulated biases due to prejudices common among psychotherapy researchers; even if researchers were all subject to therapy allegiance, this would not lead, systematically, to biases in favour of CBT. * Perron et al. state that meta-analyses automatically reinforce biases from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), whereas I argue that biases in RCTs are not systematically accumulated, and that the sensitivity of meta-analyses to doubtful RCTs can be tested by comparing results from analyses with and without these studies. * They also say that, in RCTs, the comparability between groups cannot be complete, however, the aim is not identity, and the comparability can be empirically tested after randomisation. * They also declare that the use of DSM automatically favours CBT, however, despite the fact that DSM is unsatisfactory even for biological psychiatrists and CBT therapists; no unanimously accepted alternative system has yet been identified. * Perron et al. say that the use of quantitative assessment of the psychotherapy outcome favours CBT because of an epistemological split between descriptive-nosological and functional-psychodynamic approaches. However such approaches are not clearly exclusive from each other, and a reduction of psychiatry into only two approaches does not fit with the observed variety of etiological hypotheses. * The statement that the functional-psychodynamic approach is contradictory with quantitative assessment of outcome is challenged by the fact that numerous outcome instruments for psychodynamic assessment exist. Furthermore, I have examined the size of the differences between CBT and PP, by selecting studies and meta-analyses that report the direct comparison of these therapies, but this does not provide evidence of major differences. Therefore, the existence of major bias in favour of CBT, due to either the use of DSM, symptom rating scales or other causes, is not supported by these facts. * The accusation that studies included in the Inserm report did not assess patients from control groups at endpoint has being found to be untrue. * The argument that the various effect size statistics used in the meta-analyses give rise to major bias is very unlikely. However, the authors overlooked the more important problem of pooling different outcome measures. * The allegation that a bias in favour of CBT was induced because there were more studies conducted with CBT than with PP is false, because the number of studies does not influence the effect-sizes. The Inserm report does, however, because of the presentation of results by DSM disorder and emphasis on absolute efficacy studies, find more positive results for CBT than for PP compared with no treatment. In conclusion, Perron's et al. criticisms are, in fact, against the application of scientific methodology to the assessment of the efficacy of psychotherapies as a whole. Nevertheless, the Inserm report has some weaknesses; the low number of studies of PP, the lack of direct comparisons between CBT and PP, the fact that multiple efficacy criteria were not taken into consideration, and the problem of comorbidities which was insufficiently taken into consideration.