Search

Aims: Venlafaxine is used to treat depression worldwide. Previous reviews have demonstrated that venlafaxine lowers scores on depression rating scales, producing statistically significant results but the relevance to patients remains uncertain. Knowledge of the incidence of the adverse effects associated with venlafaxine has previously been based on the results of non-randomised studies. Our primary objective was to assess the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine in the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder in randomised trials., Methods: We searched relevant databases and other sources from inception to 7 March 2024 for randomised clinical trials comparing venlafaxine versus placebo or no intervention in adults with major depressive disorder. Data were synthesised using meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The primary outcomes were suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events and non-serious adverse events., Results: We included 28 trials randomising 6,253 participants to venlafaxine versus placebo. All results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. All trials assessed outcomes at a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed insufficient information to assess the effects of venlafaxine on the risks of suicides or suicide attempts. Meta-analysis showed evidence of harm of venlafaxine versus placebo on serious adverse events (risk ratio: 2.66; 95% confidence interval: 1.67-4.25; p < 0.01; 22 trials), mainly due to a higher risk of sexual dysfunction and anorexia. Meta-analysis showed that venlafaxine also increased the risk of several non-serious adverse events: nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, sweating, somnolence, constipation, nervousness, insomnia, asthenia, tremor and decreased appetite., Conclusions: Short-term results show that venlafaxine has uncertain effects on the risks of suicides but increases the risks of serious adverse events (especially sexual dysfunction and anorexia) and many non-serious adverse events. The long-term effects of venlafaxine for major depressive disorder are unknown. It is a particular cause for concern that there are no data on the long-term adverse effects of venlafaxine given that so many people use these drugs for several years.

Question: Tricyclic antidepressants are used to treat depression worldwide, but the adverse effects have not been systematically assessed. Our objective was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of all tricyclic antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder., Study Selection and Analysis: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and other sources from inception to January 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing tricyclic antidepressants versus placebo or 'active placebo' for adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes were depressive symptoms measured on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17), serious adverse events and quality of life. The minimal important difference was defined as three points on the HDRS-17., Findings: We included 103 trials randomising 10 590 participants. All results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low or low. All trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period at a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tricyclic antidepressants compared with placebo (mean difference -3.77 HDRS-17 points; 95% CI -5.91 to -1.63; 17 trials). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect of tricyclic antidepressants compared with placebo on serious adverse events (OR 2.78; 95% CI 2.18 to 3.55; 35 trials), but the required information size was not reached. Only 2 out of 103 trials reported on quality of life and t-tests showed no evidence of a difference., Conclusions: The long-term effects of tricyclic antidepressants and the effects on quality of life are unknown. Short-term results suggest that tricyclic antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms while also increasing the risks of serious adverse events, but these results were based on low and very low certainty evidence., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021226161., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; MAH is a co-applicant and member of the DSMB of the RELEASE trial in Australia, funded by the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). MAH is co-founder and consultant for Outro Health, a digital clinic helping patients to stop unnecessary antidepressant medication. MAH has been paid honoraria by several NHS Trusts for grand rounds presentations, and by Salomon’s University and the University of Washington. MAH is a member of the Critical Psychiatry Network and the International Institute of Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal (IIPDW). JM is a co-investigator on REDUCE (programme grant studying discontinuation of antidepressants) and Chief Investigator on RADAR (programme grant to explore antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation). JM has been paid honoraria by University of Basel, Alberta Psychiatric Association, and Case Western University. JM receives royalties from Palgrave Macmillan and PCCS Books for three books about psychiatric drugs. JM is a co-chair person (unfunded position) of Critical Psychiatry Network. MPH receives royalties from Palgrave Macmillan for a book about antidepressants; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Major depressive disorder causes a great burden on patients and societies. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are commonly prescribed as second-line treatment for patients with major depressive disorder worldwide. Previous systematic reviews have concluded that venlafaxine and mirtazapine reduce depressive symptoms, but the effects seem small and may not be important to the average patient. Moreover, previous reviews have not systematically assessed the occurrence of adverse events. Therefore, we aim to investigate the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine or mirtazapine versus 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder in two separate systematic reviews., Methods: This is a protocol for two systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The assessments of the effects of venlafaxine or mirtazapine will be reported in two separate reviews. The protocol is reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2, clinical significance will be assessed using our eight-step procedure, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We will search for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We will include published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing venlafaxine or mirtazapine with 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes will be suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will include depressive symptoms, quality of life, and individual adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses., Discussion: Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are frequently used as second-line treatment of major depressive disorder worldwide. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022315395., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Major depressive disorder is a common psychiatric disorder causing great burden on patients and societies. Tricyclic antidepressants are frequently used worldwide to treat patients with major depressive disorder. It has repeatedly been shown that tricyclic antidepressants reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the effect is small and of questionable clinical importance. Moreover, the beneficial and harmful effects of all types of tricyclic antidepressants have not previously been systematically assessed. Therefore, we aim to investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder., Methods: This is a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis that will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control random errors and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers, such as CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 12 May 2021. Clinical study reports will be applied for from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing tricyclic antidepressants with 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following interventions will be assessed: amineptine, amitriptyline, amoxapine, butriptyline, cianopramine, clomipramine, desipramine, demexiptiline, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, imipramine, iprindole, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, protriptyline, tianeptine, trimipramine and quinupramine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide-attempts and non-serious adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses., Discussion: Tricyclic antidepressants are recommended by clinical guidelines and frequently used worldwide in the treatment of major depressive disorder. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021226161 ., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Major depression significantly impairs quality of life, increases the risk of suicide, and poses tremendous economic burden on individuals and societies. Duloxetine, a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is a widely prescribed antidepressant. The effects of duloxetine have, however, not been sufficiently assessed in earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses., Methods/design: A systematic review will be performed including randomised clinical trials comparing duloxetine with 'active' placebo, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Bias domains will be assessed, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed. We will conduct meta-analyses. Trial sequential analysis will be conducted to control random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using GRADE. To identify relevant trials, we will search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We will also search Chinese databases and Google Scholar. We will search all databases from their inception to the present. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. Primary outcomes will be the difference in mean depression scores on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale between the intervention and control groups and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be suicide, suicide-attempts, suicidal ideation, quality of life and non-serious adverse events., Discussion: No former systematic review has systematically assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of duloxetine taking into account both the risks of random errors and the risks of systematic errors. Our review will help clinicians weigh the benefits of prescribing duloxetine against its adverse effects and make informed decisions., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016053931.

Background: Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder., Methods/design: A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events., Discussion: As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020220279.

Background: Major depressive disorder is estimated by the WHO to affect more than 300 million people globally, making depression the leading cause of disability worldwide. Antidepressants are commonly used to treat depression., Objective: The study aimed to provide an update on the evidence on the effects of antidepressants compared with placebo. Should antidepressants be used for adults with major depressive disorder?, Study Selection: We searched the Cochrane Library, BMJ Best Practice and PubMed up to June 2019 with the search terms 'depression' and 'antidepressants' targeting reviews published in English since 1990., Findings: Several reviews have assessed the effects of antidepressants compared with placebo for depression. Generally, all the previous reviews show that antidepressants seem to have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms, but the size of the effect has questionable importance to most patients. Antidepressants seem to have minimal beneficial effects on depressive symptoms and increase the risk of both serious and non-serious adverse events., Conclusions: The benefits of antidepressants seem to be minimal and possibly without any importance to the average patient with major depressive disorder. Antidepressants should not be used for adults with major depressive disorder before valid evidence has shown that the potential beneficial effects outweigh the harmful effects., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Irving Kirsch is the author of “The Emperor’s New Drugs” for which he currently receives occasional royalties., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Retrospective studies conducted in psychiatric inpatient wards have shown a relation between the intensity of daylight in patient rooms and the length of stay, pointing to an antidepressant effect of ambient lighting conditions. Light therapy has shown a promising antidepressant effect when administered from a light box. The emergence of light-emitting diode (LED) technology has made it possible to build luminaires into rooms and to dynamically mimic the spectral and temporal distribution of daylight. The objective of this study is to investigate the antidepressant efficacy of a newly developed dynamic LED-lighting system installed in an inpatient ward., Methods and Analysis: In all, 150 inpatients with a major depressive episode, as part of either a major depressive disorder or as part of a bipolar disorder, will be included. The design is a two-arm 1:1 randomised study with a dynamic LED-lighting arm and a static LED-lighting arm, both as add-on to usual treatment in an inpatient psychiatric ward. The primary outcome is the baseline adjusted score on the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 3. The secondary outcomes are the mean score on the Suicidal Ideation Attributes Scale at week 3, the mean score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 3 and the mean score on the World Health Organisation Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) at week 3. The spectral distribution of daylight and LED-light, with a specific focus on light mediated through the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, will be measured. Use of light luminaires will be logged. Assessors of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores and data analysts will be blinded for treatment allocation. The study was initiated in May 2019 and will end in December 2021., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethical issues are expected. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, disseminated electronically and in print and presented at symposia., Trial Registration Number: NCT03821506; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TSH is an employee of Chromaviso that has supplied the lighting system., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In this response, we address point by point the additional issues raised by Hieronymus et al. in their second round of critique of our systematic review on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for major depression. We repulse that we are biased or mistaken in any major ways. We acknowledge that we missed a few small, mostly unpublished trials, and we made a few minor errors in our systematic review. However, these omissions and errors neither have any impact on our overall results nor on our conclusions. The critique by Hieronymus et al. seems to raise questions about their understanding of the systematic review process, and, on several occasions, they wrongly claimed that we made errors. Our analyses should be impartial and free from any biases or prejudices as we do not have any obligation to support the interests of sponsors or other groups.

Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy and psychodynamic therapy may be effective treatment options for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. The two modern forms of psychotherapy, "third wave" cognitive therapy and mentalization-based treatment, have both gained some ground as treatments of psychiatric disorders. No randomised trial has compared the effects of these two interventions for major depressive disorder. We performed two systematic reviews with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses using The Cochrane Collaboration methodology examining the effects of cognitive therapy and psycho-dynamic therapy for major depressive disorder. We developed a thorough treatment protocol for a randomised trial with low risks of bias (systematic error) and low risks of random errors ("play of chance") examining the effects of third wave' cognitive therapy versus mentalization-based treatment for major depressive disorder. We conducted a randomised trial according to good clinical practice examining the effects of "third wave" cognitive therapy versus mentalisation-based treatment for major depressive disorder. The first systematic review included five randomised trials examining the effects of psychodynamic therapy versus "no intervention' for major depressive disorder. Altogether the five trials randomised 365 participants who in each trial received similar antidepressants as co-interventions. All trials had high risk of bias. Four trials assessed "interpersonal psychotherapy" and one trial "short psychodynamic supportive psychotherapy". Both of these interventions are different forms of psychodynamic therapy. Meta-analysis showed that psychodynamic therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) compared with "no intervention" (mean difference -3.01 (95% confidence interval -3.98 to -2.03; p = 0.00001), no significant heterogeneity between trials). Trial sequential analysis confirmed this result. The second systematic review included 12 randomised trials examining the effects of cognitive therapy versus "no intervention" for major depressive disorder. Altogether a total of 669 participants were randomised. All trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms on the HDRS compared with "no intervention" (four trials; mean difference -3.05 (95% confidence interval, -5.23 to -0.87; p = 0.006)). Trial sequential analysis could not confirm this result. The trial protocol showed that it seemed feasible to conduct a randomised trial with low risks of bias and low risks of random errors examining the effects of "third wave" cognitive therapy versus mentalization-based therapy in a setting in the Danish healthcare system. It turned out to be much more difficult to recruit participants in the randomised trial than expected. We only included about half of the planned participants. The results from the randomised trial showed that participants randomised to "third wave" therapy compared with participants randomised to mentalization-based treatment had borderline significantly lower HDRS scores at 18 weeks in an unadjusted analysis (mean difference -4.14 score; 95% CI -8.30 to 0.03; p = 0.051). In the adjusted analysis, the difference was significant (p = 0.039). Five (22.7%) of the participants randomised to "third wave" cognitive therapy had remission at 18 weeks versus none of the participants randomised to mentalization-based treatment (p = 0.049). Sequential analysis showed that these findings could be due to random errors. No significant differences between the two groups was found regarding Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI II), Symptom Checklist 90 Revised (SCL 90-R), and The World Health Organization-Five Well-being Index 1999 (WHO 5). We concluded that cognitive therapy and psychodynamic therapy might be effective interventions for depression measured on HDRS and BDI, but the review results might be erroneous due to risks of bias and random errors. Furthermore, the effects seem relatively small. The trial protocol showed that it was possible to develop a protocol for a randomised trial examining the effects of "third wave" cognitive therapy versus mentalization-based treatment with low risks of bias and low risks of random errors. Our trial results showed that "third wave" cognitive therapy might be a more effective intervention for depressive symptoms measured on the HDRS compared with mentalization-based treatment. The two interventions did not seem to differ significantly regarding BDI II, SCL 90-R, and WHO 5. More randomised trials with low risks of bias and low risks of random errors are needed to assess the effects of cognitive therapy, psychodynamic therapy, "third wave" cognitive therapy, and mentalization-based treatment.

Objective: To compare the benefits and harms of third-wave cognitive therapy versus mentalisation-based therapy in a small sample of depressed participants., Setting: The trial was conducted at an outpatient psychiatric clinic for non-psychotic patients in Roskilde, Denmark., Participants: 44 consecutive adult participants diagnosed with major depressive disorder., Interventions: 18 weeks of third-wave cognitive therapy (n=22) versus 18 weeks of mentalisation-based treatment (n=22)., Outcomes: The primary outcome was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS) at end of treatment (18 weeks). Secondary outcomes were: remission (HDRS <8), Beck's Depression Inventory, Symptom Checklist 90 Revised and The WHO-Five Well-being Index 1999., Results: The trial inclusion lasted for about 2 years as planned but only 44 out of the planned 84 participants were randomised. Two mentalisation-based participants were lost to follow-up. The unadjusted analysis showed that third-wave participants compared with mentalisation-based participants did not differ significantly regarding the 18 weeks HDRS score (12.9 vs 17.0; mean difference -4.14; 95% CI -8.30 to 0.03; p=0.051). In the analysis adjusted for baseline HDRS score, the difference was favouring third-wave cognitive therapy (p=0.039). At 18 weeks, five of the third-wave participants (22.7%) were in remission versus none of the mentalisation-based participants (p=0.049). We recorded no suicide attempts or suicides during the intervention period in any of the 44 participants. No significant differences were found between the two intervention groups on the remaining secondary outcomes., Conclusions: Third-wave cognitive therapy may be more effective than mentalisation-based therapy for depressive symptoms measured on the HDRS. However, more randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the effects of third-wave cognitive therapy and mentalisation-based treatment for depression., Trial Registration Number: Registered with Clinical Trials government identifier: NCT01070134., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Most interventions for depression have shown small or no effects. 'Third wave' cognitive therapy and mentalization-based therapy have both gained some ground as treatments of psychological problems. No randomised trial has compared the effects of these two interventions for patients with major depression., Methods/design: We plan a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. During two years we will include 84 consecutive adult participants diagnosed with major depressive disorder. The participants will be randomised to either 'third wave' cognitive therapy versus mentalization-based therapy. The primary outcome will be the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression at cessation of treatment at 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes will be the proportion of patients with remission, Symptom Checklist 90 Revised, Beck's Depression Inventory, and The World Health Organisation-Five Well-being Index 1999., Discussion: Interventions for depression have until now shown relatively small effects. Our trial results will provide knowledge about the effects of two modern psychotherapeutic interventions., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials: NCT01070134.

Background: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetime at tremendous suffering and cost. Cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy are treatment options, but their effects have only been limitedly compared in systematic reviews., Method: Using Cochrane systematic review methodology we compared the benefits and harm of cognitive therapy versus interpersonal psychotherapy for major depressive disorder. Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, Psychlit, PsycInfo, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2010. Continuous outcome measures were assessed by mean difference and dichotomous outcomes by odds ratio. We conducted trial sequential analysis to control for random errors., Results: We included seven trials randomizing 741 participants. All trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis of the four trials reporting data at cessation of treatment on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed no significant difference between the two interventions [mean difference -1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.35 to 0.32]. Meta-analysis of the five trials reporting data at cessation of treatment on the Beck Depression Inventory showed comparable results (mean difference -1.29, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.14). Trial sequential analysis indicated that more data are needed to definitively settle the question of a differential effect. None of the included trial reported on adverse events., Conclusions: Randomized trials with low risk of bias and low risk of random errors are needed, although the effects of cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy do not seem to differ significantly regarding depressive symptoms. Future trials should report on adverse events.

Background: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Psychodynamic therapy may be a treatment option for depression, but the effects have only been limitedly assessed in systematic reviews., Method: Using Cochrane systematic review methodology, we compared the benefits and harms of psychodynamic therapy versus 'no intervention' or sham for major depressive disorder. We accepted any co-intervention, including antidepressants, as long as it was delivered similarly in both intervention groups. Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Psychlit, Psyc Info, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2010. Two authors independently extracted data. We evaluated risk of bias to control for systematic errors. We conducted trial sequential analysis to control for random errors., Results: We included five trials randomizing a total of 365 participants who all received antidepressants as co-intervention. All trials had high risk of bias. Four trials assessed 'interpersonal psychotherapy' and one trial 'short psychodynamic supportive psychotherapy'. Meta-analysis showed that psychodynamic therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (mean difference -3.01 (95% confidence interval -3.98 to -2.03; P<0.00001), no significant heterogeneity between trials) compared with 'no intervention'. Trial sequential analysis confirmed this result., Limitations: Our results are based on few trials with high risk of bias and a limited number of participants so our results may be questionable., Conclusions: Adding psychodynamic therapy to antidepressants might benefit depressed patients, but the possible treatment effect measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression is small., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Interpersonal psychotherapy and other psychodynamic therapies may be effective interventions for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews., Methods/principal Findings: Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials comparing the effect of psychodynamic therapies versus 'treatment as usual' for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included six trials randomizing a total of 648 participants. Five trials assessed 'interpersonal psychotherapy' and only one trial assessed 'psychodynamic psychotherapy'. All six trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on all six trials showed that the psychodynamic interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (mean difference -3.12 (95% confidence interval -4.39 to -1.86;P<0.00001), no heterogeneity) compared with 'treatment as usual'. Trial sequential analysis confirmed this result., Discussion: We did not find convincing evidence supporting or refuting the effect of interpersonal psychotherapy or psychodynamic therapy compared with 'treatment as usual' for patients with major depressive disorder. The potential beneficial effect seems small and effects on major outcomes are unknown. Randomized trials with low risk of systematic errors and low risk of random errors are needed.

Background: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews., Methods/principal Findings: Cochrane systematic review methodology, with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials, are comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included eight trials randomizing a total of 719 participants. All eight trials had high risk of bias. Four trials reported data on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and four trials reported data on the Beck Depression Inventory. Meta-analysis on the data from the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy compared with 'treatment as usual' significantly reduced depressive symptoms (mean difference -2.15 (95% confidence interval -3.70 to -0.60; P<0.007, no heterogeneity)). However, meta-analysis with both fixed-effect and random-effects model on the data from the Beck Depression Inventory (mean difference with both models -1.57 (95% CL -4.30 to 1.16; P = 0.26, I(2) = 0) could not confirm the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression results. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis on both the data from Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Becks Depression Inventory showed that insufficient data have been obtained., Discussion: Cognitive therapy might not be an effective treatment for major depressive disorder compared with 'treatment as usual'. The possible treatment effect measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression is relatively small. More randomized trials with low risk of bias, increased sample sizes, and broader more clinically relevant outcomes are needed.

Background: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews., Methods/principal Findings: We used The Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder. Participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder to be eligible. Altogether, we included 12 trials randomizing a total of 669 participants. All 12 trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (four trials; mean difference -3.05 (95% confidence interval (Cl), -5.23 to -0.87; P<0.006)) compared with 'no intervention'. Trial sequential analysis could not confirm this result. Meta-analysis on the Beck Depression Inventory showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (eight trials; mean difference on -4.86 (95% CI -6.44 to -3.28; P = 0.00001)). Trial sequential analysis on these data confirmed the result. Only a few trials reported on 'no remission', suicide inclination, suicide attempts, suicides, and adverse events without significant differences between the compared intervention groups., Discussion: Cognitive therapy might be an effective treatment for depression measured on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Beck Depression Inventory, but these outcomes may be overestimated due to risks of systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). Furthermore, the effects of cognitive therapy on no remission, suicidality, adverse events, and quality of life are unclear. There is a need for randomized trials with low risk of bias, low risk of random errors, and longer follow-up assessing both benefits and harms with clinically relevant outcome measures.