Search

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most prevalent, disabling form of depression, with a high economic effect.Purpose: To assess evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions as first- and second-step treatments in patients with MDD.Data Sources: Multiple electronic databases limited to English language were searched (1 January 2015 to 29 November 2022).Study Selection: Two investigators independently screened the literature. Seven economic modeling studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria.Data Extraction: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias. One investigator determined certainty of evidence, and another checked for plausibility.Data Synthesis: Seven modeling studies met the eligibility criteria. In a U.S. setting over a 5-year time horizon, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was cost-effective compared with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) as a first-step treatment from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings should be interpreted cautiously. For second-step treatment, only switch strategies between SGAs were assessed. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions.Limitations: Methodologically heterogeneous studies, which compared only CBT and some SGAs, were included. No evidence on other psychotherapies or complementary and alternative treatments as first-step treatment or augmentation strategies as second-step treatment was available.Conclusion: Although CBT may be cost-effective compared with SGAs as a first-step treatment at a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings need to be interpreted cautiously. For other comparisons, the evidence was entirely missing or insufficient to draw conclusions.Primary Funding Source:American College of Physicians.

Background: Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD). Purpose: To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants. Data Sources: English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research. Study Selection: 2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration. Data Extraction: Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest. Data Synthesis: 65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously. Limitations: Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence. Conclusion: Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration.

Background: Developers of clinical practice guidelines need to take patient values and preferences into consideration when weighing benefits and harms of treatment options for depressive disorder.Purpose: To assess patient values and preferences regarding pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments of depressive disorder.Data Sources: MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO (EBSCO) were searched for eligible studies published from 1 January 2014 to 30 November 2022.Study Selection: Pairs of reviewers independently screened 30% of search results. The remaining 70% of the abstracts were screened by single reviewers; excluded abstracts were checked by a second reviewer. Pairs of reviewers independently screened full texts.Data Extraction: One reviewer extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence, and a second reviewer checked for completeness and accuracy. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias.Data Synthesis: The review included 11 studies: 4 randomized controlled trials, 5 cross-sectional studies, and 2 qualitative studies. In 1 randomized controlled trial, participants reported at the start of therapy that they expected supportive-expressive psychotherapy and antidepressants to yield similar improvements. A cross-sectional study reported that non-Hispanic White participants and men generally preferred antidepressants over talk therapy, whereas Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black participants and women generally did not have a preference. Another cross-sectional study reported that the most important nonserious adverse events for patients treated with antidepressants were insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, weight gain, agitation, and sexual dysfunction. For other comparisons and outcomes, no conclusions could be drawn because of the insufficient certainty of evidence.Limitations: The main limitation of this review is the low or insufficient certainty of evidence for most outcomes. No evidence was available on second-step depression treatment or differences in values and preferences based on gender, race/ethnicity, age, and depression severity.Conclusion: Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be some differences in preferences for talk therapy or pharmacologic treatment of depressive disorders based on gender or race/ethnicity. In addition, low-certainty evidence suggests that insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, weight gain, agitation, and sexual dysfunction may be the most important nonserious adverse events for patients treated with antidepressants. Evidence is lacking or insufficient to draw any further conclusions about patients' weighing or valuation of the benefits and harms of depression treatments.

Due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) nursing practice is facing enormous challenges. Nevertheless, nursing science was hardly actively represented as a mouthpiece for the practice in the public discussions on the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the question arises which projects with a focus on nursing and COVID-19 have been carried out at Austrian universities. Overall, six projects were identified using the snowball method. Of the studies one showed that an increased wearing time of masks is associated with an increased stress level for nursing personnel. An additional study result showed that almost 50% of lay people used masks incorrectly. Individual experiences, interventions undertaken and solution approaches from the perspective of the nursing staff with respect to ethical challenges in nursing homes were collected in a further project. This and other projects show that nursing science, with its knowledge and as a voice for nursing practice, has taken the initiative and contributes to the COVID-19 discourse. Additionally, the findings of the projects can be used as a basis for making future political decisions.