The effects of psychotherapies for depression have been examined in several hundreds of randomized trials, but no recent network meta‐analysis (NMA) has integrated the results of these studies. We conducted an NMA of trials comparing cognitive behavioural, interpersonal, psychodynamic, problem‐solving, behavioural activation, life‐review and “third wave” therapies and non‐directive supportive counseling with each other and with care‐as‐usual, waiting list and pill placebo control conditions. Response (50% reduction in symptoms) was the primary outcome, but we also assessed remission, standardized mean difference, and acceptability (all‐cause dropout rate). Random‐effects pairwise and network meta‐analyses were conducted on 331 randomized trials with 34,285 patients. All therapies were more efficacious than care‐as‐usual and waiting list control conditions, and all therapies – except non‐directive supportive counseling and psychodynamic therapy – were more efficacious than pill placebo. Standardized mean differences compared with care‐as‐usual ranged from –0.81 for life‐review therapy to –0.32 for non‐directive supportive counseling. Individual psychotherapies did not differ significantly from each other, with the only exception of non‐directive supportive counseling, which was less efficacious than all other therapies. The results were similar when only studies with low risk of bias were included. Most therapies still had significant effects at 12‐month follow‐up compared to care‐as‐usual, and problem‐solving therapy was found to have a somewhat higher long‐term efficacy than some other therapies. No consistent differences in acceptability were found. Our conclusion is that the most important types of psychotherapy are efficacious and acceptable in the acute treatment of adult depression, with few significant differences between them. Patient preference and availability of each treatment type may play a larger role in the choice between types of psychotherapy, although it is possible that a more detailed characterization of patients with a diagnosis of depression may lead to a more precise matching between individual patients and individual psychotherapies.

No abstract

Objective Meta‐analyses of psychotherapies usually report effects sizes, while clinicians and patients need to know the proportion of patients who benefit from therapy. We conducted a meta‐analysis of therapies for depression reporting the rates of response (50% symptom reduction), remission (HAM‐D <7), clinical significant deterioration for psychotherapy, and control conditions (CAU, waitlist, and pill placebo), as well as the relative risk of these outcomes and the numbers‐needed‐to‐be‐treated (NNTs). Methods We searched bibliographic databases and included 228 randomized trials comparing psychotherapy for depression against control conditions (75 with low risk of bias). Only therapies with at least 10 trials were included. We extracted outcomes from the studies, and for those studies not reporting the outcomes, we used a validated method to estimate the rates. Results The overall response rate in psychotherapies at 2 (±1) months after baseline was 41% (95% CI: 38~43), 17% (15~20) for usual care (CAU), and 16% (95% CI: 14~18) for waitlist. No significant differences between types of therapy were found. The NNT for therapy versus CAU was 5.3 and versus waitlist 3.9. About one third of patients remitted after therapy compared with 7%–13% in control conditions. The rates of deterioration were 5% versus 12%–13%, respectively. Most sensitivity analyses supported the general findings. Conclusion Psychotherapies for depression may be effective compared with control conditions, but more than half of patients receiving therapy do not respond and only one third remitted. More effective treatments and treatment strategies such as sequencing and combining treatments are clearly needed.

IMPORTANCE Personalized treatment choices would increase the effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) for depression to the extent that patients differ in interventions that better suit them.OBJECTIVE To provide personalized estimates of short-term and long-term relative efficacy of guided and unguided iCBT for depression using patient-level information.DATA SOURCES We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published up to January 1, 2019.STUDY SELECTION Eligible RCTs were those comparing guided or unguided iCBT against each other or against any control intervention in individuals with depression. Available individual patient data (IPD) was collected from all eligible studies. Depression symptom severity was assessed after treatment, 6 months, and 12 months after randomization. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISWe conducted a systematic review and IPD network meta-analysis and estimated relative treatment effect sizes across different patient characteristics through IPD network meta-regression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPatient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores. RESULTSOf 42 eligible RCTs, 39 studies comprising 9751 participants with depression contributed IPD to the IPD network meta-analysis, of which 8107 IPD were synthesized. Overall, both guided and unguided iCBT were associated with more effectiveness as measured by PHQ-0 scores than control treatments over the short term and the long term. Guided iCBT was associated with more effectiveness than unguided iCBT (mean difference [MD] in posttreatment PHQ-9 scores, −0.8; 95% CI, −1.4 to −0.2), but we found no evidence of a difference at 6 or 12 months following randomization. Baseline depression was found to be the most important modifier of the relative association for efficacy of guided vs unguided iCBT. Differences between unguided and guided iCBT in people with baseline symptoms of subthreshold depression (PHQ-9 scores 5-9) were small, while guided iCBT was associated with overall better outcomes in patients with baseline PHQ-9 greater than 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this network meta-analysis with IPD, guided iCBT was associated with more effectiveness than unguided iCBT for individuals with depression, benefits were more substantial in individuals with moderate to severe depression. Unguided iCBT was associated with similar effectiveness among individuals with symptoms of mild/subthreshold depression. Personalized treatment selection is entirely possible and necessary to ensure the best allocation of treatment resources for depression.

The Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS) is a self-report questionnaire designed to evaluate the severity and functional impairment associated with anxiety. Given its transdiagnostic nature, it can be used indistinctly across anxiety and depressive disorders. In this study, the psychometric properties of the online version of the OASIS were evaluated in a Spanish clinical sample with emotional disorders. Patients (n = 583) with anxiety (n = 250) and depression (n = 333) with a mean age of 37.21 (SD = 12.22), underwent a diagnostic interview and questionnaires assessing anxiety, depression, positive and negative affect, and quality of life. Factorial structure, internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, cutoff scores, and sensitivity to change were analyzed. Confirmatory Factor Analysis yielded a unidimensional factor structure, consistent with previous validations of the instrument. The analyses showed good internal consistency and adequate convergent and discriminant validity, as well as sensitivity to change. A cutoff score of 7.5 was found to meet the criteria used in this study to select the optimal cutoff point. Overall, in this study, the psychometric properties of the online version of the OASIS were found to be appropriate. The brevity and ease of use of the OASIS support its adequacy as a valid measure of anxiety severity and impairment in Spanish clinical samples with anxiety and depression.