Comparative effectiveness of psychological treatments for depressive disorders in primary care: network meta-analysis

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative effectiveness of psychological treatments for depressive disorders in primary care: network meta-analysis

AU - Linde, Klaus

AU - Rücker, Gerta

AU - Sigterman, Kirsten

AU - Jamil, Susanne

AU - Meissner, Karin

AU - Schneider, Antonius

AU - Kriston, Levente

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - BACKGROUND: A variety of psychological interventions to treat depressive disorders have been developed and are used in primary care. In a systematic review, we compared the effectiveness of psychological treatments grouped by theoretical background, intensity of contact with the health care professional, and delivery mode for depressed patients in this setting.METHODS: Randomized trials comparing a psychological treatment with usual care, placebo, another psychological treatment, pharmacotherapy, or a combination treatment in adult depressed primary care patients were identified by database searches up to December 2013. We performed both conventional pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence. Outcome measures were response to treatment (primary outcome), remission of symptoms, post-treatment depression scores and study discontinuation.RESULTS: A total of 37 studies with 7,024 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among the psychological treatments investigated in at least 150 patients face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; OR 1.80; 95 % credible interval 1.35-2.39), face-to-face counselling and psychoeducation (1.65; 1.27-2.13), remote therapist lead CBT (1.87; 1.38-2.53), guided self-help CBT (1.68; 1.22-2.30) and no/minimal contact CBT (1.53; 1.07-2.17) were superior to usual care or placebo, but not face-to-face problem-solving therapy and face-to-face interpersonal therapy. There were no statistical differences between psychological treatments apart from face-to-face interpersonal psychotherapy being inferior to remote therapist-lead CBT (0.60; 0.37-0.95). Remote therapist-led (0.86; 0.21-3.67), guided self-help (0.93; 0.62-1.41) and no/minimal contact CBT (0.85; 0.54-1.36) had similar effects as face-to-face CBT.CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence precludes a sufficiently reliable assessment of the comparative effectiveness of psychological treatments in depressed primary care patients. Findings suggest that psychological interventions with a cognitive behavioral approach are promising, and primarily indirect evidence indicates that it applies also when they are delivered with a reduced number of therapist contacts or remotely.SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: 01KG1012 at http://www.gesundheitsforschung-bmbf.de/de/2852.php.

AB - BACKGROUND: A variety of psychological interventions to treat depressive disorders have been developed and are used in primary care. In a systematic review, we compared the effectiveness of psychological treatments grouped by theoretical background, intensity of contact with the health care professional, and delivery mode for depressed patients in this setting.METHODS: Randomized trials comparing a psychological treatment with usual care, placebo, another psychological treatment, pharmacotherapy, or a combination treatment in adult depressed primary care patients were identified by database searches up to December 2013. We performed both conventional pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence. Outcome measures were response to treatment (primary outcome), remission of symptoms, post-treatment depression scores and study discontinuation.RESULTS: A total of 37 studies with 7,024 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among the psychological treatments investigated in at least 150 patients face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; OR 1.80; 95 % credible interval 1.35-2.39), face-to-face counselling and psychoeducation (1.65; 1.27-2.13), remote therapist lead CBT (1.87; 1.38-2.53), guided self-help CBT (1.68; 1.22-2.30) and no/minimal contact CBT (1.53; 1.07-2.17) were superior to usual care or placebo, but not face-to-face problem-solving therapy and face-to-face interpersonal therapy. There were no statistical differences between psychological treatments apart from face-to-face interpersonal psychotherapy being inferior to remote therapist-lead CBT (0.60; 0.37-0.95). Remote therapist-led (0.86; 0.21-3.67), guided self-help (0.93; 0.62-1.41) and no/minimal contact CBT (0.85; 0.54-1.36) had similar effects as face-to-face CBT.CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence precludes a sufficiently reliable assessment of the comparative effectiveness of psychological treatments in depressed primary care patients. Findings suggest that psychological interventions with a cognitive behavioral approach are promising, and primarily indirect evidence indicates that it applies also when they are delivered with a reduced number of therapist contacts or remotely.SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: 01KG1012 at http://www.gesundheitsforschung-bmbf.de/de/2852.php.

U2 - 10.1186/s12875-015-0314-x

DO - 10.1186/s12875-015-0314-x

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 26286590

VL - 16

SP - 103

JO - BMC PRIM CARE

JF - BMC PRIM CARE

SN - 1471-2296

ER -