scholarly journals Childhood maltreatment and characteristics of adult depression: Meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 210 (2) ◽  
pp. 96-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janna Nelson ◽  
Anne Klumparendt ◽  
Philipp Doebler ◽  
Thomas Ehring
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Childhood Maltreatment ◽  
Emotional Abuse ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Age At Onset ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Course Of Illness ◽  
Adult Depression ◽  
Resistant Depression

BackgroundChildhood maltreatment has been discussed as a risk factor for the development and maintenance of depression.AimsTo examine the relationship between childhood maltreatment and adult depression with regard to depression incidence, severity, age at onset, course of illness and treatment response.MethodWe conducted meta-analyses of original articles reporting an association between childhood maltreatment and depression outcomes in adult populations.ResultsIn total, 184 studies met inclusion criteria. Nearly half of patients with depression reported a history of childhood maltreatment. Maltreated individuals were 2.66 (95% CI 2.38–2.98) to 3.73 (95% CI 2.88–4.83) times more likely to develop depression in adulthood, had an earlier depression onset and were twice as likely to develop chronic or treatment-resistant depression. Depression severity was most prominently linked to childhood emotional maltreatment.ConclusionsChildhood maltreatment, especially emotional abuse and neglect, represents a risk factor for severe, early-onset, treatment-resistant depression with a chronic course.

scholarly journals Augmentation therapies for treatment-resistant depression: systematic review and meta-analysis – CORRIGENDUM

2018 ◽  
Vol 214 (5) ◽  
pp. 308-308
Author(s):  
Rebecca Strawbridge ◽  
Ben Carter ◽  
Lindsey Marwood ◽  
Borwin Bandelow ◽  
Dimosthenis Tsapekos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Resistant Depression

scholarly journals Low Openness on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory as a Risk Factor for Treatment-Resistant Depression

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e71964 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michio Takahashi ◽  
Yukihiko Shirayama ◽  
Katsumasa Muneoka ◽  
Masatoshi Suzuki ◽  
Koichi Sato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Revised Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Resistant Depression

scholarly journals Placebo response in treatment resistant depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of multiple treatment modalities

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S261-S262
Author(s):  
Brett D M Jones ◽  
Cory R. Weissman ◽  
Jewel Karbi ◽  
Tya Vine ◽  
Louise S. Mulsant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Placebo Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Placebo Response ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Resistant Depression

AimsThe placebo response in depression clinical trials is a major contributing factor for failure to establish the efficacy of novel and repurposed treatments. However, it is not clear as to what the placebo response in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) patients is or whether it differs across treatment modalities. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the magnitude of the placebo response in TRD patients across different treatment modalities and its possible moderators.MethodSearches were conducted on MEDLINE and PsychInfo from inception to January 24, 2020. Only studies that recruited TRD patients and randomization to a placebo (or sham) arm in a pharmacotherapy, brain stimulation, or psychotherapy study were included (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020190465). The primary outcome was the Hedges’ g for the reported depression scale using a random-effects model. Secondary outcomes included moderators assessed via meta-regression and response and remission rate. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Egger's Test and a funnel plot. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to estimate risks.Result46 studies met our inclusion criteria involving a total of 3083 participants (mean (SD) age: 45.7 (6.2); female: 52.4%). The pooled placebo effect for all modalities was large (N = 3083, g = 1.08 ,95% CI [0.95-1.20)I 2 = 0.1). The placebo effect in studies of specific treatment modalities did not significantly differ: oral medications g = 1.14 (95%CI:0.99-1.29); parenteral medications g = 1.32 (95%CI:0.59-2.04); ayahuasca g = 0.47 (95%CI:-0.28-1.17); rTMS g = 0.93 (95%CI:0.63-1.23); tDCS g = 1.32 (95%CI:0.52-2.11); invasive brain stimulation g = 1.06 (95%CI:0.64-1.47). There were no psychotherapy trials that met our eligibility criteria. Similarly, response and remission rates were comparable across modalities. Heterogeneity was large. Two variables predicted a lager placebo effect: open-label prospective design (B:0.32, 95%CI: 0.05-0.58; p:0.02) and sponsoring by a pharmaceutical or medical device company (B:0.39, 95%CI:0.13-0.65, p:0.004)). No risk of publication bias was found.ConclusionThe overall placebo effect in TRD studies was large (g = 1.08) and did not differ among treatment modalities. A better understanding of the placebo response in TRD will require: standardizing the definition of TRD, head-to-head comparisons of treatment modalities, an assessment of patient expectations and experiences, and standardized reporting of outcomes.

Relative effectiveness of augmentation treatments for treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 477-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Carter ◽  
Rebecca Strawbridge ◽  
Muhammad Ishrat Husain ◽  
Brett D. M. Jones ◽  
Roxanna Short ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Resistant Depression

scholarly journals Pharmacological Treatments for Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie L. Ruberto ◽  
Manish K. Jha ◽  
James W. Murrough
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Options ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Course Of Illness ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Resistant Depression

Over a third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not have an adequate response to first-line antidepressant treatments, i.e., they have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). These patients tend to have a more severe course of illness and are at an increased risk of suicide. Next step treatment options for patients with TRD, include switching to a different antidepressant, combining more than one antidepressant, or augmenting an antidepressant with another (non-antidepressant) medication. It is unclear which of these treatment approaches should be applied to a given patient, and in what order. Due to this ambiguity, comparing antidepressants and augmentation agents on the basis of their efficacy, tolerability, and speed of symptom relief would be beneficial for clinicians. To accomplish this, a systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials were included in this qualitative synthesis, resulting in 66 articles. This review identified several effective pharmaco-therapeutic strategies that are currently available for patients with TRD. Ketamine and esketamine appear to be effective for the treatment of TRD. Augmentation with certain second generation antipsychotics, such as quetiapine or aripiprazole is likewise effective, and may be preferred over switching to antidepressant monotherapy. While the combination of olanzapine and fluoxetine was one of the first pharmacotherapy approved for TRD, and its use may be limited by metabolic side-effects. Other effective strategies include augmentation with lithium, liothyronine (T3), lamotrigine, or combination of antidepressants including bupropion, tricyclics, or mirtazapine. There is insufficient research to demonstrate the efficacy of ziprasidone or levothyroxine (T4). A shared decision-making approach is recommended to guide treatment selection to address each patient’s individual needs.

scholarly journals Deep Brain Stimulation Is Effective for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 2796
Author(s):  
Frederick L. Hitti ◽  
Andrew I. Yang ◽  
Mario A. Cristancho ◽  
Gordon H. Baltuch
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resistant Depression ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
K 12 ◽  
Deep Brain

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of disability and a significant cause of mortality worldwide. Approximately 30–40% of patients fail to achieve clinical remission with available pharmacological treatments, a clinical course termed treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Numerous studies have investigated deep brain stimulation (DBS) as a therapy for TRD. We performed a meta-analysis to determine efficacy and a meta-regression to compare stimulation targets. We identified and screened 1397 studies. We included 125 citations in the qualitative review and considered 26 for quantitative analysis. Only blinded studies that compared active DBS to sham stimulation (k = 12) were included in the meta-analysis. The random-effects model supported the efficacy of DBS for TRD (standardized mean difference = −0.75, <0 favors active stimulation; p = 0.0001). The meta-regression did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between stimulation targets (p = 0.45). While enthusiasm for DBS treatment of TRD has been tempered by recent randomized trials, this meta-analysis reveals a significant effect of DBS for the treatment of TRD. Additionally, the majority of trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of DBS for this indication. Further trials are required to determine the optimal stimulation parameters and patient populations for which DBS would be effective. Particular attention to factors including electrode placement technique, patient selection, and long-term follow-up is essential for future trial design.

scholarly journals Augmentation therapies for treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 254 ◽  
pp. 153
Author(s):  
Dr Rebecca Strawbridge ◽  
Dr Ben Carter ◽  
Dr Lindsey Marwood ◽  
Professor Borwin Bandelow ◽  
Dimosthenis Tsapekos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Resistant Depression

Childhood maltreatment and clinical severity of treatment‐resistant depression in a French cohort of outpatients (FACE‐DR): One‐year follow‐up

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Yrondi ◽  
Bruno Aouizerate ◽  
Djamila Bennabi ◽  
Raphaëlle Richieri ◽  
Thierry D'Amato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Childhood Maltreatment ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Resistant Depression ◽  
One Year ◽  
French Cohort

scholarly journals Augmentation therapies for treatment-resistant depression: systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 214 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Strawbridge ◽  
Ben Carter ◽  
Lindsey Marwood ◽  
Borwin Bandelow ◽  
Dimosthenis Tsapekos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychological Control ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
The Past ◽  
Grant Support ◽  
Resistant Depression ◽  
Research Grant

BackgroundDepression is considered to have the highest disability burden of all conditions. Although treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a key contributor to that burden, there is little understanding of the best treatment approaches for it and specifically the effectiveness of available augmentation approaches.AimsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to search and quantify the evidence of psychological and pharmacological augmentation interventions for TRD.MethodParticipants with TRD (defined as insufficient response to at least two antidepressants) were randomised to at least one augmentation treatment in the trial. Pre-post analysis assessed treatment effectiveness, providing an effect size (ES) independent of comparator interventions.ResultsOf 28 trials, 3 investigated psychological treatments and 25 examined pharmacological interventions. Pre-post analyses demonstrated N-methyl-d-aspartate-targeting drugs to have the highest ES (ES = 1.48, 95% CI 1.25–1.71). Other than aripiprazole (four studies, ES = 1.33, 95% CI 1.23–1.44) and lithium (three studies, ES = 1.00, 95% CI 0.81–1.20), treatments were each investigated in less than three studies. Overall, pharmacological (ES = 1.19, 95% CI 1.08–1.30) and psychological (ES = 1.43, 95% CI 0.50–2.36) therapies yielded higher ESs than pill placebo (ES = 0.78, 95% CI 0.66–0.91) and psychological control (ES = 0.94, 95% CI 0.36–1.52).ConclusionsDespite being used widely in clinical practice, the evidence for augmentation treatments in TRD is sparse. Although pre-post meta-analyses are limited by the absence of direct comparison, this work finds promising evidence across treatment modalities.Declaration of interestIn the past 3 years, A.H.Y. received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly and Sunovion; honoraria for consulting from Allergan, Livanova and Lundbeck, Sunovion and Janssen; and research grant support from Janssen. In the past 3 years, A.J.C. received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca and Lundbeck; honoraria for consulting with Allergan, Janssen, Livanova, Lundbeck and Sandoz; support for conference attendance from Janssen; and research grant support from Lundbeck. B.B. has recently been (soon to be) on the speakers/advisory board for Hexal, Lilly, Lundbeck, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Servier. No other conflicts of interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document