3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmentation and combination treatments for early-stage treatment-resistant depression

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly burdensome health condition, for which there are numerous accepted pharmacological and psychological interventions. Adjunctive treatment (augmentation/combination) is recommended for the ~50% of MDD patients who do not adequately respond to first-line treatment. We aimed to evaluate the current evidence for concomitant approaches for people with early-stage treatment-resistant depression (TRD; defined below).

          Methods:

          We systematically searched Medline and Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science to identify randomised controlled trials of adjunctive treatment of ⩾10 adults with MDD who had not responded to ⩾1 adequate antidepressant. The cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool was used to assess study quality. Pre-post treatment meta-analyses were performed, allowing for comparison across heterogeneous study designs independent of comparator interventions.

          Results:

          In total, 115 trials investigating 48 treatments were synthesised. The mean intervention duration was 9 weeks (range 5 days to 18 months) with most studies assessed to have low ( n = 57) or moderate ( n = 51) RoB. The highest effect sizes (ESs) were from cognitive behavioural therapy (ES = 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09–2.07), (es)ketamine (ES = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.23–1.73) and risperidone (ES = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.29–1.61). Only aripiprazole and lithium were examined in ⩾10 studies. Pill placebo (ES = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81–0.98) had a not inconsiderable ES, and only six treatments’ 95% CIs did not overlap with pill placebo’s (aripiprazole, (es)ketamine, mirtazapine, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone). We report marked heterogeneity between studies for almost all analyses.

          Conclusions:

          Our findings support cautious optimism for several augmentation strategies; although considering the high prevalence of TRD, evidence remains inadequate for each treatment option.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A RATING SCALE FOR DEPRESSION

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs

              Effect sizes are the most important outcome of empirical studies. Most articles on effect sizes highlight their importance to communicate the practical significance of results. For scientists themselves, effect sizes are most useful because they facilitate cumulative science. Effect sizes can be used to determine the sample size for follow-up studies, or examining effects across studies. This article aims to provide a practical primer on how to calculate and report effect sizes for t-tests and ANOVA's such that effect sizes can be used in a-priori power analyses and meta-analyses. Whereas many articles about effect sizes focus on between-subjects designs and address within-subjects designs only briefly, I provide a detailed overview of the similarities and differences between within- and between-subjects designs. I suggest that some research questions in experimental psychology examine inherently intra-individual effects, which makes effect sizes that incorporate the correlation between measures the best summary of the results. Finally, a supplementary spreadsheet is provided to make it as easy as possible for researchers to incorporate effect size calculations into their workflow.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Psychopharmacol
                J Psychopharmacol
                JOP
                spjop
                Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                0269-8811
                1461-7285
                21 July 2022
                March 2023
                : 37
                : 3
                : 268-278
                Affiliations
                [1 ]South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [2 ]Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
                [3 ]Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
                Author notes
                [*]Rebecca Strawbridge, Centre for Affective Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK. Email: Becci.strawbridge@ 123456kcl.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5818-2199
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6471-537X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2984-1124
                Article
                10.1177_02698811221104058
                10.1177/02698811221104058
                10076341
                35861202
                bce0c6db-2c2e-4c4f-8f68-84e6b227db0c
                © The Author(s) 2022

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100019418;
                Award ID: n/a
                Categories
                Original Papers
                Custom metadata
                ts1

                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine
                major depressive disorder,treatment resistant depression,meta-analysis,augmentation,combination

                Comments

                Comment on this article