Blog

Morina, N., Malek, M., Nickerson, A., & Bryant, R.A. (2017). Meta-analysis of interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in adult survivors of mass violence in low- and middle-income countries. Depression and Anxiety, DOI: 10.1002/da.22618

There is a high prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in countries that have experienced civil war and mass violence, and given the number of open conflict, the prevalence is likely increasing. Most people affected are from low- to middle-income countries. Both PTSD and depression confer a large personal, social, health, and economic burden especially when untreated. Research in Western countries show that psychological treatment of PTSD is effective, but there are practical barriers to transporting and adapting these interventions to low- and middle-income countries. In this meta-analysis, Morina and colleagues do a systematic review of psychological interventions for PTSD conducted of adult survivors of war in low- and middle-income countries. Treatments included trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing and several others. In total, 2,124 treated participants and 934 participants in the waitlist condition were included in the analyses. In the 18 trials that were included, symptoms of PTSD and depression were measured. The average drop-out rate was 11.5%. Across all active interventions (k = 16), a large pre–post effect size was found, g = 1.29; 95% CI = [0.99; 1.59] for PTSD. The average between-group effect size comparing active treatments versus control conditions at post-treatment was small to medium, g = 0.39; 95% CI = [0.249; 0.55], and at follow-up was large, g = 0.93; 95% CI = [0.56; 1.31], k = 10. Pre-post effect size for depression was equally large g = 1.28; 95% CI = [0.96; 1.61]. The effect size comparing active treatments versus control conditions for depression at posttreatment (k = 11) was large, g = 0.86; 95% CI = [0.54; 1.18], and at follow-up was medium to large, g = 0.90; 95% CI = [0.49; 1.33], k = 5.

Practice Implications

Evidence-based psychological treatments developed in high-income countries are also effective in reducing symptoms of PTSD and depression in adults who experienced war-time conditions in low- and middle-income countries. Although not directly tested, the evidence suggests that different evidence-based treatments were equally effective. Even if drop-out rates were low, practical barriers still existed, including the number of sessions of these treatments (average was 10 sessions), the need for trained personnel, and the need for face to face meetings. The authors suggested that collaborative care models should be evaluated and tested which aim to enhance the reach of efficacious treatments within primary care to optimize the number of patients who can benefit from these interventions.

Bradley, R., Greene, J., Russ, E., Dutra, L., & Westen, D. (2005). A multidimensional meta-analysis of psychotherapy for PTSD. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 214–227.

The psychotherapy research literature on treatment of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has focused on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT, with exposure and/or cognitive restructuring) and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). Exposure therapy involves confronting memories of the trauma or cues related to the traumatic event. Other CBT skills include developing skills for anxiety management or challenging distorted cognitions. In EMDR the patient is asked to develop an image of the traumatic event while tracking a bilateral stimulus. Most studies demonstrate the effectiveness of CBT for PTSD in the short term. However, many studies have excluded patients with comorbid conditions. For example, patients with PTSD often also have significant other symptoms like depression, substance abuse, other anxiety disorders, and personality disorders. In this meta analysis, Bradley and colleagues were interested in documenting the overall efficacy of psychological treatments for PTSD. They also wanted to report on any evidence on the long term efficacy of treatments for PTSD, and on evidence of the effects of excluding patients with comorbid disorders. Bradley and colleagues included randomized controlled trials published between 1980 and 2003 (i.e., 26 studies representing 1,535 patients). Also, they looked at outcomes defined in a few ways: change in symptoms as documented by the effect size, proportion of patients no longer meeting diagnostic criteria for PTSD (but who may have residual symptoms), and proportion whose symptoms improved significantly. Across all treatments, the average pre to post effect size was large (d = 1.43), and comparisons to control conditions were also large (d = .83). The results suggested that psychotherapy produced substantial effects for PTSD. Differences between types of therapy (CBT, CBT with exposure, EMDR) were negligible. Fifty six percent of patients no longer met criteria for PTSD, and 65% showed improved symptoms. At follow ups, 62% no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD and 32% were deemed improved, but the number of studies with follow up data were small (k = 10) and so the results could be unreliable. Of those who started treatment, 78.9% completed the therapy. Of those who were assessed, 30% were excluded because of suicide risk, drug or alcohol abuse, or “other serious comorbidity”.

Practice Implications

Treatment guidelines from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies list a number of effective treatments for PTSD. The evidence for efficacy is strongest at post treatment, and more research is necessary to demonstrate efficacy in the longer term. There is currently little evidence that any one treatment approach is more effective than another, and some researchers are debating whether specific interventions like exposure is necessary to treat PTSD. Bradley and colleagues argue that we need more research on alternative treatments for PTSD and research on patients with multiple symptoms and comorbidities.

Author email: rbradl2@emory.edu

Markowitz, J.C., Petkova, E., Neria, Y., Van Meter, P.E., Zhao, Y., … Marshall, R.D. (2015). Is exposure necessary? A randomized controlled trial of Interpersonal Psychotherapy for PTSD. American Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 1-11.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a condition caused by experiencing or witnessing a terrifying event. Symptoms may include flashbacks, nightmares and severe anxiety, as well as uncontrollable thoughts about the event. PTSD has a lifetime prevalence of 6.8%, which makes it a highly prevalent disorder. The main technique of empirically validated psychological treatments for PTSD involve exposing patients to safe reminders of the trauma including memories, with the intent of extinguishing the fear responses. This is the basis of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with prolonged exposure, which is a consensus treatment for PTSD. However, not all patients benefit from CBT with prolonged exposure, and such treatment may be too difficult for some patients and therapists to tolerate. Markowitz and colleagues argued that PTSD symptoms reflect interpersonal issues including interpersonal withdrawal, mistrust, and hypervigilence. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) is a time-limited efficacious treatment for depression that was adapted for this study for non-exposure based non-CBT treatment of PTSD. IPT was modified so that the first half of treatment focused on recognizing, naming, and expressing feelings in non-trauma related interpersonal situations. The second half of treatment focused on common IPT themes such as role disputes and role transitions. The authors argued that IPT helps individuals with PTSD gain mastery over social interactions and mobilize social supports. The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial that had a sufficient sample size to test a hypothesis of “non-inferiority”, that is to adequately test if PTSD and exposure based CBT were equally effective. Both treatments were compared to a progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) control condition. In all, 110 participants with chronic PTSD were recruited and randomized to IPT, CBT, or PMR. Most patients reported trauma of 14 years duration from either sexual or physical abuse, and half had a current comorbid depression. All three interventions resulted in large significant reductions in PTSD symptoms. IPT (63%) and CBT (47%) were not significantly different in rates of response (i.e., in which response was defined as 30% improvement in a clinician administered PTSD scale), but IPT had a significantly higher response rate than PMR (38%). Patients with comorbid depression were more likely to drop out of CBT with prolonged exposure than IPT.

Practice Implications

The results of the study suggest that IPT and CBT with exposure were equally effective in reducing symptoms of PTSD. It is important to keep in mind that this is one well-conducted trial that needs to be replicated by independent researchers in order to establish if the findings are truly reliable. Nevertheless, the findings contradict the widespread belief that patients with PTSD require exposure-based treatment in order to improve. IPT may be another option for the treatment of PTSD, especially for patients who cannot tolerate the prolonged exposure. Patients with comorbid depression may have the most difficulty tolerating prolonged exposure therapy, and so they may benefit from IPT as an alternative. IPT may help patients gain abilities in social interactions and social support, which may make it easier for them to spontaneously expose themselves to recollections of trauma.

Ehring, T., Welboren, R., Morina, N., Wicherts, J.M., Freitag, J., & Emmelkamp, P.M.G (2014). Meta-analysis of psychological treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder in adult survivors of childhood abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 645-657.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) occurs at a very high frequency among those who experienced childhood physical and/or sexual abuse. As adults these individuals often request mental health services. Previous meta analyses of psychotherapies for PTSD have combined samples of those with PTSD due to childhood maltreatment and those due to trauma in adulthood. This meta analysis by Ehring and colleagues is the first specifically to look at treatment of PTSD in those with childhood abuse. Some argue that PTSD due to childhood abuse is different because of the high level of complex symptoms like emotion regulation problems, impulsivity, depression, dissociation, substance abuse, and others. And so treatments for PTSD related to childhood abuse may require different characteristics and may have different outcomes. Further, there is a long standing debate about whether trauma-focused treatments are appropriate for those with PTSD who have high levels of complex symptoms. There is concern for example that the focus on trauma memories may exacerbate symptoms like dissociation. Previous reviews showed that treatments targeting the trauma memory (i.e., focus on processing the memory and its meaning) had the largest effect on PTSD outcomes. This is likely because of the impact that memory processes (i.e., re-accessing memories, maladaptive attributions of memories) have on the maintenance of the disorder. Would these large treatment effects also be found in PTSD that resulted specifically from childhood abuse? (A note about meta analyses: meta analyses are the best way to synthesize a research area because this method combines the effect sizes from multiple studies into a single effect size. The findings of meta analyses are much more reliable than findings from any single study. See my November 2013 blog). Ehrling and colleagues conducted a meta analysis of 16 studies that included over 1200 participants with PTSD due to childhood abuse. Treatments included: trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), non-trauma-focused CBT, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), and others. Psychological interventions were effective for PTSD related to childhood abuse, and the effects were large for both PTSD symptom severity and for other symptoms (i.e., depression, anxiety, dissociation). Psychological interventions were more effective that control conditions (i.e., wait lists or treatments as usual), and these effects were moderate. Effects remained large or moderate well into post-treatment follow-ups. Trauma focused treatments were more effective than non-trauma-focused treatments, and individual interventions were more effective than group-based interventions.

Practice Implications

Psychological interventions for PTSD in adults who experienced childhood abuse are effective in reducing symptom severity with moderate to large effects. Other symptoms like anxiety, depression, and dissociation also showed large positive changes in these individuals. Research shows that trauma-focused treatments are under-used in routine practice. This may be due to the concern that trauma-focused treatments may not be safe in some individuals with complex symptoms. Trauma-focused treatments may lead to higher effects than non-trauma focused treatments, indicating the potential importance of processing the trauma memory.

Swift, J. K., & Greenberg, R. P. (2014). A treatment by disorder meta-analysis of dropout from psychotherapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 24(3), 193-207.

In one of my first PPRNet Blogs I reported on a meta analysis by Swift and Greenberg (2012) in which they found that almost 1 in 5 patients in clinical trials dropped out of therapy. There were no differences between therapeutic orientations in the drop out rates. However, the authors did report that those with eating disorders (23.9%) and personality disorders (25.6%) dropped out at a higher rate than other disorders. Premature termination from therapy is an important problem in that those who drop out are less satisfied and have poorer outcomes than treatment completers. In this follow up to their meta analysis, Swift and Greenberg ask the interesting question of whether premature termination differs across therapy orientations for any of the specific disorders. They compared the drop out rates of different treatment approaches for each of 12 separate disorders.  The studies defined drop out in various ways, including: unilateral termination, not attending a set number of sessions, not achieving clinically significant change, etc. Treatment orientations, included: behavior therapy, cognitive–behavioral therapies, dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), psychodynamic psychotherapies, solution-focused therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, humanistic/existential/supportive psychotherapies, and integrative approaches. Primary diagnoses included: depression, eating disorders, borderline personality disorder, other personality disorder, somatoform disorder, bereavement, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), psychotic disorders, and social phobia. The authors conducted 12 meta analyses, one for each disorder to compare the therapy approaches. Overall, they included 587 studies. There were no differences in drop out rates among therapy approaches for 9 of the 12 disorders. For depression, integrative therapy had significantly lower drop out rates than other approaches (10.9% vs 19.2%), and for PTSD integrative therapy also had the lowest drop out rate compared to other treatments (8.8% vs 21.0%). Also, for PTSD, exposure based interventions had the highest drop out rates (up to 28.5%). For eating disorders, DBT had the lowest drop out rates compared to other approaches (5.9% vs 24.2%), but this was largely explained by older patient samples and shorter duration of treatment in DBT.

Practice Implications

There were no differences between treatments in drop out rates for 9 of 12 disorders. Swift and Greenberg argued that for these disorders, other factors (e.g., therapeutic alliance, client expectations) rather than specific techniques were enough to keep clients in therapy. For depression and PTSD, integrative treatments resulted in the lowest drop out rates. This suggests that therapists might consider incorporating techniques from other orientations that increase the acceptability of therapy for their clients with depression and PTSD. Use of exposure based interventions for PTSD may require a significant amount of work to prepare clients in order to reduce higher drop out rates.

Gerger, H., Munder, T., Gemperli, E., Nuesch, E., Trelle, S., Juni, P., & Barth, J. (2014). Integrating fragmented evidence by network meta-analysis. Relative effectiveness of psychological interventions for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder. Psychological Medicine, doi:10.1017/S0033291714000853.

Gerger and colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Psychological trauma is common in the population (between 40% and 90% lifetime prevalence), and many people develop symptoms following the trauma that may turn into PTSD. For example people may re-experience the traumatic event, avoid stimuli related to the traumatic event, or experience increased arousal. Even those who do not meet DSM-IV criteria for PTSD may still have severe impairment and chronic symptoms. Specific interventions for PTSD include exposure to trauma related stimuli or working through cognitions related to the trauma. Non-specific interventions might include supportive therapy or relaxation treatments. As I mentioned in previous blogs, meta-analyses are the best way to summarize the evidence of existing research in order to make clinical decisions about practice. Meta-analyses allow us to pool the effect sizes from individual studies of many patients into an average effect. This method provides the most reliable estimates of the effects of treatments – no single study can be as reliable. Network meta-analysis is a relatively new method that not only allows one to accumulate results from trials that directly compare the same two treatments, but it also allows indirect comparisons of a treatment and another treatment that was tested in a different study. In their network meta-analysis, Gerger and colleagues included 66 studies representing 4,196 patients. Specific treatments included cognitive behavioral therapies (CBT), eye movement disensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), and exposure based therapy (ET). Non-specific interventions included stress management (SM) and supportive therapy (ST). The positive effect of specific interventions (CBT, EMDR, and ET) compared to a wait-list control was large. The positive effect of non-specific interventions (SM, ST) compared to a wait-list control was moderate. There were no differences in effectiveness among the psychological interventions, except EMDR outperformed ST. However, this difference disappeared when only the large scale trials were considered (results from large scale trials tend to be more reliable). Patients with a formal diagnosis of PTSD appear to benefit more from psychological interventions than those with sub-clinical PTSD, though both groups improved.

Practice Implications

Different specific interventions for PTSD (CBT, EMDR, ET) appear to have similar positive benefits with large effects. Indirect interventions show moderately positive effects. Supportive therapy (ST) may be beneficial, but the authors indicated that it is too early to conclude that ST is as effective as direct specific interventions. All patients benefit from psychological interventions, though those with more severe symptoms stand to gain the most. Given the similar outcomes of interventions and the number of effective interventions, researchers are now arguing that factors such as access, acceptability, and patient preference should influence the choice of treatment.