A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.

<h4>Background</h4>Although previous meta-analyses have examined effects of antidepressants, psychotherapy, and alternative therapies for depression, the efficacy of these treatments alone and in combination has not been systematically compared. We hypothesized that the differences betwe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Arif Khan, James Faucett, Pesach Lichtenberg, Irving Kirsch, Walter A Brown
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041778&type=printable
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1839648726801448960
author Arif Khan
James Faucett
Pesach Lichtenberg
Irving Kirsch
Walter A Brown
author_facet Arif Khan
James Faucett
Pesach Lichtenberg
Irving Kirsch
Walter A Brown
author_sort Arif Khan
collection DOAJ
description <h4>Background</h4>Although previous meta-analyses have examined effects of antidepressants, psychotherapy, and alternative therapies for depression, the efficacy of these treatments alone and in combination has not been systematically compared. We hypothesized that the differences between approved depression treatments and controls would be small.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>The authors first reviewed data from Food and Drug Administration Summary Basis of Approval reports of 62 pivotal antidepressant trials consisting of data from 13,802 depressed patients. This was followed by a systematic review of data from 115 published trials evaluating efficacy of psychotherapies and alternative therapies for depression. The published depression trials consisted of 10,310 depressed patients. We assessed the percentage symptom reduction experienced by the patients based on treatment assignment. Overall, antidepressants led to greater symptom reduction compared to placebo among both unpublished FDA data and published trials (F = 38.5, df = 239, p<0.001). In the published trials we noted that the magnitude of symptom reduction with active depression treatments compared to controls was significantly larger when raters evaluating treatment effects were un-blinded compared to the trials with blinded raters (F = 2.17, df = 313, p<0.05). In the blinded trials, the combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy provided a slight advantage over antidepressants (p = 0.027) and psychotherapy (p = 0.022) alone. The magnitude of symptom reduction was greater with psychotherapies compared to placebo (p = 0.019), treatment-as-usual (p = 0.012) and waiting-list (p<0.001). Differences were not seen with psychotherapy compared to antidepressants, alternative therapies or active intervention controls.<h4>Conclusions</h4>In conclusion, the combination of psychotherapy and antidepressants for depression may provide a slight advantage whereas antidepressants alone and psychotherapy alone are not significantly different from alternative therapies or active intervention controls. These data suggest that type of treatment offered is less important than getting depressed patients involved in an active therapeutic program. Future research should consider whether certain patient profiles might justify a specific treatment modality.
format Article
id doaj-art-fdbe9dab5ebb4dfd9b29062eea617196
institution Matheson Library
issn 1932-6203
language English
publishDate 2012-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj-art-fdbe9dab5ebb4dfd9b29062eea6171962025-06-28T05:31:45ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032012-01-0177e4177810.1371/journal.pone.0041778A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.Arif KhanJames FaucettPesach LichtenbergIrving KirschWalter A Brown<h4>Background</h4>Although previous meta-analyses have examined effects of antidepressants, psychotherapy, and alternative therapies for depression, the efficacy of these treatments alone and in combination has not been systematically compared. We hypothesized that the differences between approved depression treatments and controls would be small.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>The authors first reviewed data from Food and Drug Administration Summary Basis of Approval reports of 62 pivotal antidepressant trials consisting of data from 13,802 depressed patients. This was followed by a systematic review of data from 115 published trials evaluating efficacy of psychotherapies and alternative therapies for depression. The published depression trials consisted of 10,310 depressed patients. We assessed the percentage symptom reduction experienced by the patients based on treatment assignment. Overall, antidepressants led to greater symptom reduction compared to placebo among both unpublished FDA data and published trials (F = 38.5, df = 239, p<0.001). In the published trials we noted that the magnitude of symptom reduction with active depression treatments compared to controls was significantly larger when raters evaluating treatment effects were un-blinded compared to the trials with blinded raters (F = 2.17, df = 313, p<0.05). In the blinded trials, the combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy provided a slight advantage over antidepressants (p = 0.027) and psychotherapy (p = 0.022) alone. The magnitude of symptom reduction was greater with psychotherapies compared to placebo (p = 0.019), treatment-as-usual (p = 0.012) and waiting-list (p<0.001). Differences were not seen with psychotherapy compared to antidepressants, alternative therapies or active intervention controls.<h4>Conclusions</h4>In conclusion, the combination of psychotherapy and antidepressants for depression may provide a slight advantage whereas antidepressants alone and psychotherapy alone are not significantly different from alternative therapies or active intervention controls. These data suggest that type of treatment offered is less important than getting depressed patients involved in an active therapeutic program. Future research should consider whether certain patient profiles might justify a specific treatment modality.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041778&type=printable
spellingShingle Arif Khan
James Faucett
Pesach Lichtenberg
Irving Kirsch
Walter A Brown
A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.
PLoS ONE
title A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.
title_full A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.
title_fullStr A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.
title_short A systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression.
title_sort systematic review of comparative efficacy of treatments and controls for depression
url https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041778&type=printable
work_keys_str_mv AT arifkhan asystematicreviewofcomparativeefficacyoftreatmentsandcontrolsfordepression
AT jamesfaucett asystematicreviewofcomparativeefficacyoftreatmentsandcontrolsfordepression
AT pesachlichtenberg asystematicreviewofcomparativeefficacyoftreatmentsandcontrolsfordepression
AT irvingkirsch asystematicreviewofcomparativeefficacyoftreatmentsandcontrolsfordepression
AT walterabrown asystematicreviewofcomparativeefficacyoftreatmentsandcontrolsfordepression
AT arifkhan systematicreviewofcomparativeefficacyoftreatmentsandcontrolsfordepression
AT jamesfaucett systematicreviewofcomparativeefficacyoftreatmentsandcontrolsfordepression
AT pesachlichtenberg systematicreviewofcomparativeefficacyoftreatmentsandcontrolsfordepression
AT irvingkirsch systematicreviewofcomparativeefficacyoftreatmentsandcontrolsfordepression
AT walterabrown systematicreviewofcomparativeefficacyoftreatmentsandcontrolsfordepression