Search

Abstract Background Adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) is a prevalent mental health problem with low treatment success rates. Whether fluoxetine or fluoxetine combined with cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is the more effective initial treatment for adolescent MDD remains controversial, and few studies have investigated whether treatment switching or augmentation is preferred when the initial treatment is not working well. Methods We developed a multicentre open-label Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) design, consisting of two phases lasting 8 weeks each. In phase 1 (at baseline), patients will be recruited and grouped in fluoxetine group or fluoxetine combined with CBT group by patient self-selection. In phase 2 (after 8 weeks of treatment), the nonresponders will be randomly assigned to six groups, in which participants will switch to sertraline, vortioxetine, or duloxetine or added aripiprazole, olanzapine, or lithium carbonate to fluoxetine. After the full 16 weeks of treatment, we will assess the long-term sustainability of the treatment effects by evaluating participants during their subsequent naturalistic treatment. The primary outcome will be the response rate, determined by the Children’s Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R). Secondary outcomes include the change in scores on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Screen for Child Anxiety-Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED) and the Safe Assessment. Discussion The results from this study will aid clinicians in making informed treatment selection decisions for adolescents with MDD. Trial registration This protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with Identifier: NCT05814640.

Abstract Background Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common among children and adolescents who have experienced traumatic events. Exposure therapy (ET) has been shown to be effective in treating PTSD in adults. However, its efficacy remains uncertain in children and adolescents. Aims To evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of ET in children and adolescents with PTSD. Method We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest, LILACS, and international trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed ET in children and adolescents (aged ≤18 years) with PTSD up to August 31, 2020. The primary outcomes were efficacy (the endpoint score from PTSD symptom severity rating scales) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), secondary outcomes included efficacy at follow-up (score from PTSD scales at the longest point of follow-up), depressive symptoms (end-point score on depressive symptom severity rating scales) and quality of life/social functioning (end-point score on quality of life/social functioning rating scales). This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020150859). Result A total of 6 RCTs (278 patients) were included. The results showed that ET was statistically more efficacious than control groups (standardized mean differences [SMD]: − 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: − 0.91 to − 0.03). In subgroup analysis, exposure therapy was more efficacious for patients with single type of trauma (SMD: − 1.04, 95%CI: − 1.43 to − 0.65). Patients with an average age of 14 years and older, ET was more effective than the control groups (SMD: − 1.04, 95%CI: − 1.43 to − 0.65), and the intervention using prolonged exposure therapy (PE) (SMD: − 1.04, 95%CI: − 1.43 to − 0.65) was superior than control groups. Results for secondary outcomes of efficacy at follow-up (SMD: − 0.64, 95%CI: − 1.17 to − 0.10) and depressive symptoms (SMD: − 0.58, 95%CI: − 0.93 to − 0.22) were similar to the previous findings for efficacy outcome. No statistically significant effects for acceptability and quality of life/social functioning were found. Conclusion ET showed superiority in efficacy at post-treatment/follow-up and depressive symptoms improvement in children and adolescents with PTSD. Patients with single type of trauma may benefit more from ET. And ET is more effective in patients 14 years or older. Moreover, PE could be a better choice.

Abstract Background Although the clinical efficacy and safety of combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy in the treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents have been studied, the results remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to study the short-term efficacy and acceptability of combined therapy for children and adolescents with depressive disorders. Methods We conducted a systematic search in multiple databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), up to 31 December 2020, that assessed the combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy against other active treatment options (pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy and placebo combined psychotherapy) in children and adolescents ( ≤ 18 years old) with depressive disorder. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020196701). Results A total of 14 RCTs involving 1,325 patients were included. For the primary and secondary outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between the compared interventions in terms of remission (odds ratios [OR] = 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93 to 2.04), acceptability (OR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.38), efficacy (standardised mean differences = -0.07; 95% CI: -0.32 to 0.19), and suicidality (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 0.67 to 2.06). Limited evidence showed that the combination of fluoxetine (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.10 to 3.29) or non-selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (non-SSRI) (OR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.06 to 5.72) with cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) was superior to other active treatment options. Most included trials were rated as ‘some concerns’ in terms of risk of bias assessment. Conclusion There is no evidence from the limited available data that all combined therapies are superior to other active treatment options for the acute treatment of depressive disorder in children and adolescents. However, it showed that fluoxetine or non-SSRI pharmacotherapies combined with CBT might be superior to other therapies in short-term. Mixed characteristics (e.g. age) and small sample size of non-SSRI combined therapy may influence the generalisability of the results.

Abstract Background Anxiety disorder is the most prevalent mental disorder among children and adolescents, causing significant psychosocial problems and physical health conditions. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for anxiety disorder in children and adolescents. And parent-only CBT is an alternative treatment for childhood anxiety disorder, which includes psychologists and parents rather than children in the treatment. As a new type of CBT, parent-only CBT has some advantages. However, it remains unclear whether parent-only CBT interventions are effective for treating children and adolescents with anxiety disorder. Methods In this study, we evaluated the efficacy (the mean change scores of the anxiety rating scale from baseline to post-treatment, standardized mean difference SMD) and acceptability (the proportion of patients in the treatment group who withdrew from treatment early for any reason, risk ratios RRs) of parent-only cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for children and adolescents with anxiety disorder. We searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, ProQuest, and PsycINFO from inception to June 2019. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing parent-only CBT either with waitlist (WL), or CBT with parents in children and adolescents with anxiety disorder. Results Finally, six RCTs with 407 participants were included in the meta-analyses. In terms of efficacy, pooled analyses indicated that parent-only CBT was significantly more effective than WL for reducing anxiety symptoms with SMD of − 0.72 (95% CI − 1.41 to − 0.03, p = 0.04), and more remission rate with RR of 4.33 (37.96% vs. 6.85, 95% CI 1.82 to 10.27, p = 0.0009) at post-treatment. And our analyses showed no evidence that parent-only CBT had significantly greater efficacy than CBT with parents with SMD of 0.21 (95% CI − 0.09 to 0.50, p = 0.17). Acceptability in the parent-only CBT group was not significantly different to the WL group with RR of 0.92 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.62, p = 0.77), and was significantly worse than in the CBT with parents group with RR of 1.93 (95% CI 1.05 to 3.57, p = 0.03). Conclusions Current evidence indicates that parent-only CBT can be an alternative and acceptable intervention for treating children and adolescents with anxiety disorder.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Abstract Background In recent years, whether, when and how to use antidepressants to treat depressive disorder in children and adolescents has been hotly debated. Relevant evidence on this topic has increased rapidly. In this paper, we present the construction and content of a database of randomised controlled trials of antidepressants to treat depressive disorder in children and adolescents. This database can be freely accessed via our website and will be regularly updated. Description Major bibliographic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and LiLACS), international trial registers and regulatory agencies’ websites were systematically searched for published and unpublished studies up to April 30, 2017. We included randomised controlled trials in which the efficacy or tolerability of any oral antidepressant was compared with that of a control group or any other treatment. In total, 7377 citations from bibliographical databases and 3289 from international trial registers and regulatory agencies’ websites were identified. Of these, 53 trials were eligible for inclusion in the final database. Selected data were extracted from each study, including characteristics of the participants (the study population, setting, diagnostic criteria, type of depression, age, sex, and comorbidity), characteristics of the treatment conditions (the treatment conditions, general information, and detail of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy) and study characteristics (the sponsor, country, number of sites, blinding method, sample size, treatment duration, depression scales, other scales, and primary outcome measure used, and side-effect monitoring method). Moreover, the risk of bias for each trial were assessed. Conclusion This database provides information on nearly all randomised controlled trials of antidepressants in children and adolescents. By using this database, researchers can improve research efficiency, avoid inadvertent errors and easily focus on the targeted subgroups in which they are interested. For authors of subsequent reviews, they could only use this database to insure that they have completed a comprehensive review, rather than relied solely on the data from this database. We expect this database could help to promote research on evidence-based practice in the treatment of depressive disorder in children and adolescents. The database could be freely accessed in our website: http://xiepengteam.cn/research/evidence-based-medicine.

Background: Current guidelines for treatment-resistant depression in adolescents remain inadequate. This study aimed to systematically review the management of treatment-resistant depression in adolescent patients. Methods: We conducted an electronic database search of PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science and PsycINFO for studies with adolescent treatment-resistant depression published up to January 2014. Treatmentresistant depression was defined as failure to respond to at least one course of psychological or pharmacological treatment for depression with an adequate dosage, duration, and appropriate compliance during the current illness episode. The Cochrane risk-of-bias method was used to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis of all active treatments was conducted. Results: Eight studies with 411 depressed adolescents that fit predetermined criteria investigated pharmacological treatments and psychotherapies. Six were open-label studies, and two were randomized controlled trials. The overall response rate for all active treatments investigated was 46% (95% CI 33 to 59; N = 411) with a moderately high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 76.1%, 95% CI = 47%-86%). When only the two randomized trials were included, the overall response rate of active treatment was 53% (95% CI = 38-67; N = 347). In these randomized trials, SSRI therapy plus CBT was significantly more effective than SSRI therapy alone, while amitriptyline was not more effective than placebo. Conclusions: Approximately half of the adolescents who presented with treatment-refractory depression responded to active treatment, which suggests that practitioners should remain persistent in managing these challenging cases. The combination of antidepressant medication and psychotherapy should be recommended for adolescents who present with treatment-resistant depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]