Blog

Cuijpers, P., Noma, H., Karyotaki, E.,  Vinkers, C.H., Cipriani, A., & Furukawa, T.A. (2020). A network meta‐analysis of the effects of psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and their combination in the treatment of adult depression. World Psychiatry, 19, 92-107.

Mental disorders represent a significant health burden worldwide, with over 350 million people affected. Depression is the second leading cause of disease burden. There is ample evidence that psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies are effective in the treatment of depression. There is also evidence for the efficacy of different types of psychotherapy (CBT, IPT, PDT), and for different types of antidepressant medications. Some research suggests that combining psychotherapy and medications is better than either intervention alone, but the evidence is inconclusive. Existing meta analyses only compare two existing treatments directly to each other at a time: psychotherapy vs medications, psychotherapy vs combined treatments, medications vs combined treatments. In this meta-analysis, Cuijpers and colleagues use a method called “network meta-analysis” to study the relative impact of medications, psychotherapy, or their combination. Network meta-analysis is controversial because it relies on indirect comparisons to estimate effects. For example, let’s say one study compared medications (A) to psychotherapy (B), and another study compared medication (A) to combination treatment (C), then a network meta-analysis would estimate the effects of psychotherapy vs combination treatment by using the transitive principle (if A = B, and B = C, then A = C). This logic relies on everything being equivalent across studies. However, in treatment trials one cannot assume that the different studies comparing A, B, and C are equivalent in terms of quality and bias (in fact, we know they are not). In any case, Cuijpers and colleagues found that combined treatment was superior to ei­ther psychotherapy alone or pharmacotherapy alone in terms of standardized effect sizes (0.30, 95% CI: 0.14-0.45 and 0.33, 95% CI: 0.20-0.47). No significant difference was found between psychotherapy alone and pharmacotherapy alone (0.04, 95% CI: –0.09 to 0.16). Interestingly, acceptability (defined as lower patient drop-out rate and better patient adherence to the treatment) was significantly better for combined treatment compared with pharmacotherapy (RR=1.23, 95% CI:

1.05-1.45), as well as for psychotherapy compared with pharmacotherapy (RR=1.17, 95% CI: 1.02-1.32). In other words, pharmacotherapy alone was less acceptable to patients than another treatment approach that included psychotherapy.

Practice Implications

This network meta-analysis by a renowned researcher and in a prestigious journal adds to the controversy around the relative efficacy of psychotherapy vs medications vs their combination. What is clear is that patients find medication alone to be less acceptable as a treatment option, and previous research shows that patients are 4 times more likely to prefer psychotherapy over medications. Unfortunately, most people with depression receive medications without psychotherapy.

Merz, J., Schwarzer, G., & Gerger, H. (2019). Comparative efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological, psychotherapeutic, and combination treatments in adults with posttraumatic stress disorder: A network meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 76, 904-91.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a highly debilitating disorder characterized by re-experiencing trauma, avoidance of situations related to the trauma, negative mood and cognitions, and hyperarousal. The lifetime prevalence of PTSD in the population is about 8%, and PTSD is associated with a great deal of medical problems, and social and economic burden. Difference between a variety of psychological treatment approaches for PTSD are small and not statistically significant. Some treatment guidelines tend to recommend both psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy to treat PTSD, but other guidelines indicate only psychotherapy as the first-line treatment. Merz and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis to examine comparative outcomes and acceptability of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy and their combination in adults with PTSD. The authors focused on randomized controlled trials because these designs tend to produce the most reliable evidence. The authors identified 12 published studies with a total of 922 participants. Six of the studies included data on long term outcomes. The meta-analytic procedures that the authors used in this study included network meta-analyses (which some have argued may produce unreliable results) and direct comparison meta-analysis (which is more reliable, but resulted in fewer studies being included here). I report in this blog only results that were consistent between the network and direct comparison analyses. Pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments and their combinations were not significantly different in their effectiveness immediately post-treatment. However, at long-term follow-up psychotherapy was significantly more beneficial than pharmacotherapy (SMD, −0.63; 95% CI, −1.18 to −0.09). Combined psychotherapy plus pharmacotherapy was not significantly more effective that pharmacotherapy alone (SMD, −1.02; 95% CI, −2.77 to 0.72), and combined treatment was not more effective that psychotherapy alone (SMD, 0.06; 95% CI, −0.31 to 0.42). There were also no statistically significant differences between psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, or their combination in the acceptability of treatments to participants as defined by differing rates of dropping out from the studies.

Practice Implications

This meta-analysis of a small number of studies suggests that psychotherapy produces better long-term outcomes than pharmacotherapy for PTSD. There is also a suggestion that combining psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy does not improve outcomes compared to either treatment alone. This research area seems to be new and not well developed, but so far, the results seem to favor psychotherapy for longer term outcomes. These findings are similar to those from a larger meta-analysis for depression. In that study, the authors suggested that the long-term benefit of psychotherapy was due to participants learning coping and interpersonal skills that were not gained from receiving pharmacological intervention alone.

Huey, S. J. & Tilley, J. L. (2018). Effects of mental health interventions with Asian Americans: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86, 915-930.

Do existing mental health interventions work well for patients of Asian descent? Interventions delivered in the typical way in which they were devised may not be as effective as intended when it comes to culturally diverse groups like Asian Americans. The clinical trials in which the treatments were developed typically are almost exclusively made up of White participants, and most evidence-based treatments do not consider cultural considerations. Culturally responsive psychotherapies that are consistent with the cultural norms, values, and expectations of patients may be more effective. That is, if an evidence-based treatment is not culture specific, it may not be as effective as intended. Even when culture is taken into account in evidence-based treatments, the accommodation tends to be for African American or Hispanic/Latino patients, and not for Asian American patients. Asian American and East Asian heritage is often influenced by Confucian values that emphasize interpersonal harmony, mutual obligations, and respect for hierarchy in relationships. This may mean that patients of Asian descent may be less committed to personal choice, more attuned to others, and more socially conforming. This may lead to cultural differences in cognitive processing and emotional reactions to interpersonal contexts. In this meta-analysis, Huey and colleagues assessed if the effects of evidence-based treatments will be bigger if the treatments were specifically tailored for Asian Americans. Their review included 18 studies with 6,377 participants. Samples included Chinese Americans, Cambodian Americans, Korean Americans, Vietnamese Americans, and other Asian groups. Problems treated included depression, PTSD, smoking, and other concerns. About half of the studies were of CBT, and most (91%) were culturally tailored in some way either for an Asian subgroup or tailored for minorities in general. The mean effect size for evidence-based treatments versus control groups was d = .75, SE = .14, p < .001, indicating a moderate to large effect. Treatments tailored specifically for Asian subgroups (e.g., Chinese Americans) showed the largest effects (d = 1.10), whereas treatment with no cultural tailoring or non-Asian tailoring showed the smallest effects (d = .25).

Practice Implications

Existing psychological treatments are efficacious for Asian Americans, with moderate effects. However, treatments specifically adapted for Asian American subgroups showed the largest effects, indicating that specific cultural adaptations could substantially improve the effectiveness of psychotherapy. Asian Americans face challenges in terms of using and engaging in treatments. Developing culturally specific interventions to improve acceptability of treatment may be one way to make the most therapeutic impact on one of the largest growing racial groups in North America.

Author email: hueyjr@usc.edu

Lilliengren, P., Johansson, R., Lindqvist, K., Mechler, J., & Andersson, G. (2016). Efficacy of experiential dynamic therapy for psychiatric conditions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychotherapy, 53(1), 90-104.

There is growing research support for the efficacy of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies to treat common mental health problems. A subtype of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies is called experiential-dynamic therapy (EDT), which goes by a number of different names such as Fosha’s accelerated experiential-dynamic psychotherapy, and McCullough’s affect phobia therapy. A fundamental assumption of EDT is that conditions like depression, anxiety and personality disorders are by-products of an individual’s attempts to regulate strong emotions associated with adverse experiences in attachment relationships during childhood. When the attachment system and associated affects are re-awakened in current relationships, the individual may engage in maladaptive coping that leads to difficulties in relationships. While EDTs may focus on helping patients to understand how their attachment difficulties lead to inhibitory affects and maladaptive defenses, the treatment favors interventions that facilitate direct experience of underlying emotions in the here and now of the therapy. In this meta-analysis, Lilliengren and colleagues reviewed 28 studies with 1,782 adult patients who had a mood, anxiety, personality, or mixed disorder. Compared to inactive controls, EDT showed a moderate and significant effect at post-treatment (range: d = .39 to .65) and at follow-up assessments (range: d = .26 to .62), with largest effects for depression and anxiety. When researchers compared EDT to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in five studies, there were no significant effects at post-treatment (d = .02, 95% CI: -.24, .28) or follow-up (d = .07, 95% CI: -.22, .36). The average quality of EDT studies was good. In fact, studies with larger samples, that used blind randomization and assessments, and appropriate statistical tests showed larger effects for EDT. Drop-out rates for EDT (16.3%) were similar to other treatments.

Practice Implications

Experiential-dynamic therapy (EDT), which is a variant of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy, was more effective than no-treatment and just as effective as evidence-based treatments like CBT. The findings are similar to those reported in many comparative outcome studies in which any bona-fide psychotherapy is effective for many disorders. The average quality of the EDT studies was quite good, suggesting that the findings were reliable and valid, and perhaps underestimating the true effects of EDT.

Author email: peter.lilliengren@psychology.su.se

McLaughlin, S.P.B., Barkowski, S., Burlingame, G.M., Strauss, B., & Rosendahl, J. (2019). Group psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder: A meta-Analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Psychotherapy. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pst0000211

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is characterized by fear of abandonment, unstable intense relationships, rapid changes in identity and self-image, impulsivity, wide mood swings, periods of intense anger, and ongoing feelings of emptiness. These symptoms sometimes lead to suicidal behavior or non-suicidal self-injury. Often, those with BPD report a very stressful childhood that included sexual and/or physical abuse, and neglect. Borderline personality disorder is the most common of the personality disorders and is associated with severe social psychological impairment such that those with BPD often have unstable employment, are involved in abusive relationships, and engage in risky behaviors. A diagnosis of BPD is also associated with a high rate of mortality due to suicide. Practice guidelines indicate that psychotherapy is a key component to the treatment of BPD. Two psychological treatment approaches that incorporate group interventions are dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and mentalization-based treatment (MBT). In DBT patients learn specific skills to alter maladaptive ways of regulating emotions in a group context. In MBT, an attachment-based treatment, the focus is on building trust in others through group interactions that generalize to other social relationships. In this meta-analysis, McLaughlin and colleagues reviewed 24 studies that compared group treatment for BPD to treatment as usual, which included a variety of interventions like supportive groups, pharmacotherapy, individual therapy, and others. Some of the treatments for BPD were stand-alone groups and some groups were part of a larger comprehensive program. Participants attended between 12 and 130 sessions, and group size ranged from 4 to 12 members. The meta-analysis revealed that group treatment for BPD versus treatment as usual resulted in moderate to large effect on BPD symptoms: g = .72, CI: [.41, 1.04], p < .001. The effects of group treatment versus treatment as usual on suicidality produced a moderate effect, g = .46, CI: [.22, .71], p < .001. The authors reported similar results for secondary outcomes like depression, anxiety, and general mental health. Drop-out rates were similar between group treatments (26.26%) and treatment as usual (28.26%). There were no differences in the effects of group therapy orientations on any of the outcomes or on drop-out rates.

Practice Implications

The results of this meta-analysis indicated the value of group treatment for BPD not only for core symptoms and suicidality, but also for symptoms related to quality of life (depression, anxiety). Theoretical orientation did not explain any of the findings, suggesting that treatments like DBT and MBT in a group format are equally effective. Therapists and patients can feel confident that group treatment for BPD are among the most effective treatments available.

Author email: mclaughlin.stevie@gmail.com

Carl, E., Witcraft, S.M., Kauffman, B.Y., Gillespie, E.M., Becker, E.S…. Powers, M.B. (2019). Psychological and pharmacological treatments for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD): a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, DOI:10.1080/16506073.2018.1560358

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is characterized by excessive and difficult to control worry about events or activities. GAD is associated with a high level of impairment in social functioning, work productivity, and health-related quality of life. GAD is also associated with a high level of medical costs and health care utilization. About 4.3% of the general population have experienced GAD at one time in their life. In this updated meta-analysis, Carl and colleagues reviewed the empirical literature to compare the effects of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapy to control conditions. Seventy-nine studies with over 11,000 participants were included in the review. In 39 comparisons, evidence-based psychotherapies outperformed control conditions on measures of anxiety at posttreatment (g = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.61–0.91, p < 0.001), suggesting a medium to large effect. Only 12 studies evaluated follow-up data, and they found that psychotherapy resulted in a small but statistically significant average effect on anxiety symptoms (g = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.00–0.53, p = 0.05). Compared to older patients, younger patients tended to do better in psychotherapy. Forty-three studies found that pharmacotherapy consistently outperformed control conditions at post-treatment (g = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.30–0.47, p < 0.001) suggesting a small effect. There were no studies that assessed pharmacotherapy at a follow-up date. Patient age or treatment dose did not affect outcomes of pharmacotherapy. The authors were careful to point out that that the effect sizes of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy were not comparable in this meta-analysis because psychotherapy trials tended to use no-treatment controls whereas pharmacotherapy trials tended to use placebo controls, and the latter tends to produce more conservative (smaller) estimates of effects.

Practice Implications

Both psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy appear to be effective by post-treatment for patients with GAD. The effects of psychotherapy at follow-up is diminished, and no studies evaluated whether patients receiving pharmacotherapy maintained any gains at follow-up. Research has suggested that compared to psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy outcomes for depression at follow up is poorer. Although this study does not allow one to compare psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy, evidence from another meta-analysis suggests that patients would strongly prefer psychotherapy if given the choice. And patients receiving their preferred treatment tend to experience significantly better outcomes.

Author email: emilycarl@utexas.edu