Dismantling, optimising, and personalising internet cognitive behavioural therapy for depression: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis using individual participant data.
Journal
The lancet. Psychiatry
ISSN: 2215-0374
Titre abrégé: Lancet Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101638123
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
received:
24
11
2020
revised:
12
02
2021
accepted:
17
02
2021
pubmed:
7
5
2021
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
6
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Internet cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) is a viable delivery format of CBT for depression. However, iCBT programmes include training in a wide array of cognitive and behavioural skills via different delivery methods, and it remains unclear which of these components are more efficacious and for whom. We did a systematic review and individual participant data component network meta-analysis (cNMA) of iCBT trials for depression. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from database inception to Jan 1, 2019, that compared any form of iCBT against another or a control condition in the acute treatment of adults (aged ≥18 years) with depression. Studies with inpatients or patients with bipolar depression were excluded. We sought individual participant data from the original authors. When these data were unavailable, we used aggregate data. Two independent researchers identified the included components. The primary outcome was depression severity, expressed as incremental mean difference (iMD) in the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores when a component is added to a treatment. We developed a web app that estimates relative efficacies between any two combinations of components, given baseline patient characteristics. This study is registered in PROSPERO, CRD42018104683. We identified 76 RCTs, including 48 trials contributing individual participant data (11 704 participants) and 28 trials with aggregate data (6474 participants). The participants' weighted mean age was 42·0 years and 12 406 (71%) of 17 521 reported were women. There was suggestive evidence that behavioural activation might be beneficial (iMD -1·83 [95% credible interval (CrI) -2·90 to -0·80]) and that relaxation might be harmful (1·20 [95% CrI 0·17 to 2·27]). Baseline severity emerged as the strongest prognostic factor for endpoint depression. Combining human and automated encouragement reduced dropouts from treatment (incremental odds ratio, 0·32 [95% CrI 0·13 to 0·93]). The risk of bias was low for the randomisation process, missing outcome data, or selection of reported results in most of the included studies, uncertain for deviation from intended interventions, and high for measurement of outcomes. There was moderate to high heterogeneity among the studies and their components. The individual patient data cNMA revealed potentially helpful, less helpful, or harmful components and delivery formats for iCBT packages. iCBT packages aiming to be effective and efficient might choose to include beneficial components and exclude ones that are potentially detrimental. Our web app can facilitate shared decision making by therapist and patient in choosing their preferred iCBT package. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Internet cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) is a viable delivery format of CBT for depression. However, iCBT programmes include training in a wide array of cognitive and behavioural skills via different delivery methods, and it remains unclear which of these components are more efficacious and for whom.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and individual participant data component network meta-analysis (cNMA) of iCBT trials for depression. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from database inception to Jan 1, 2019, that compared any form of iCBT against another or a control condition in the acute treatment of adults (aged ≥18 years) with depression. Studies with inpatients or patients with bipolar depression were excluded. We sought individual participant data from the original authors. When these data were unavailable, we used aggregate data. Two independent researchers identified the included components. The primary outcome was depression severity, expressed as incremental mean difference (iMD) in the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores when a component is added to a treatment. We developed a web app that estimates relative efficacies between any two combinations of components, given baseline patient characteristics. This study is registered in PROSPERO, CRD42018104683.
FINDINGS
We identified 76 RCTs, including 48 trials contributing individual participant data (11 704 participants) and 28 trials with aggregate data (6474 participants). The participants' weighted mean age was 42·0 years and 12 406 (71%) of 17 521 reported were women. There was suggestive evidence that behavioural activation might be beneficial (iMD -1·83 [95% credible interval (CrI) -2·90 to -0·80]) and that relaxation might be harmful (1·20 [95% CrI 0·17 to 2·27]). Baseline severity emerged as the strongest prognostic factor for endpoint depression. Combining human and automated encouragement reduced dropouts from treatment (incremental odds ratio, 0·32 [95% CrI 0·13 to 0·93]). The risk of bias was low for the randomisation process, missing outcome data, or selection of reported results in most of the included studies, uncertain for deviation from intended interventions, and high for measurement of outcomes. There was moderate to high heterogeneity among the studies and their components.
INTERPRETATION
The individual patient data cNMA revealed potentially helpful, less helpful, or harmful components and delivery formats for iCBT packages. iCBT packages aiming to be effective and efficient might choose to include beneficial components and exclude ones that are potentially detrimental. Our web app can facilitate shared decision making by therapist and patient in choosing their preferred iCBT package.
FUNDING
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33957075
pii: S2215-0366(21)00077-8
doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00077-8
pmc: PMC8838916
mid: NIHMS1773418
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
500-511Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : K23 DA045766
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : P50 MH119029
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R01 MH111610
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests TAF reports grants from Japan Society for Promotion of Science, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Shionogi, outside the submitted work; a patent 2018-177688 concerning smartphone CBT apps pending; and an intellectual properties for Kokoro-app licensed to Tanabe-Mitsubishi. AC reports personal fees from Italian Network for Paediatric Trials and CARIPLO Foundation; and grants and personal fees from Angelini Pharma, outside the submitted work. EGO reports personal fees from Angelini Pharma, outside the submitted work. PCa reports personal fees from Osmond Foundation and Sandoz, outside the submitted work. JD is co-owner of Behavioral Activation Tech LLC, a small business that develops and evaluates mobile app-based treatments for depression and co-occurring disorders. DDE has served as a consultant to or on the scientific advisory boards of Sanofi, Novartis, Minddistrict, Lantern, Schoen Kliniken, Ideamed, German health insurance companies (BARMER, Techniker Krankenkasse), and a number of federal chambers for psychotherapy; is a stakeholder of the Institute for health training online (GET.ON), which aims to implement scientific findings related to digital health interventions into routine care. NRF is an employee of AbleTo. JPK reports grants and personal fees from Servier; personal fees from Beltz, Elsevier, Hogrefe, and Springer, outside the submitted work; funding for clinical trials (German Federal Ministry of Health and Servier); payments for presentations on internet interventions (Servier); and payments for workshops and books (Beltz, Elsevier, Hogrefe, and Springer) on psychotherapy for chronic depression and on psychiatric emergencies. BM is an employee of GAIA AG. DCM reports personal fees from Apple, Pear Therapeutics, and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals and has an equity interest in Adaptive Health, outside the submitted work. JMM is supported by a Wellcome Trust Grant (104908/Z/14/Z). SN is an employee of GET.ON Institut. DR is an employee of SilverCloud Health. LBS is an employee of Influents Innovations. PZ reports grants and non-financial support from Techniker Krankenkasse (German public health insurance company), outside the submitted work. CK reports personal fees from Oberbergklinik and Servier; and grants and non-financial support from Techniker Krankenkasse, outside the submitted work. MH reports grants and non-financial support from Techniker Krankenkasse, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Nov 25;100(24):14293-6
pubmed: 14615578
Psychother Res. 2019 Jan;29(1):15-29
pubmed: 29115185
JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jul 1;76(7):700-707
pubmed: 30994877
Am J Epidemiol. 2009 May 1;169(9):1158-65
pubmed: 19258485
PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001454
pubmed: 23723742
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Oct 6;16(1):345
pubmed: 27716200
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;42(1):332-45
pubmed: 23508418
Clin Psychol Rev. 2018 Jul;63:80-92
pubmed: 29940401
J Affect Disord. 2014 Jan;152-154:113-21
pubmed: 23886401
Clin Trials. 2012 Feb;9(1):48-55
pubmed: 21948059
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2017 Apr;85(4):367-380
pubmed: 28230390
Trials. 2018 Jul 4;19(1):353
pubmed: 29973252
Behav Res Ther. 2012 Nov;50(11):699-706
pubmed: 22982085
World Psychiatry. 2015 Oct;14(3):270-7
pubmed: 26407772
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2019 May 7;15:207-231
pubmed: 30550721
Psychol Med. 2019 Sep;49(12):1937-1947
pubmed: 31179960
Res Synth Methods. 2016 Sep;7(3):236-63
pubmed: 26754852
J Affect Disord. 2015 Apr 1;175:152-67
pubmed: 25618002
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2013 Aug;81(4):722-36
pubmed: 23688145
Res Synth Methods. 2021 Jan;12(1):86-95
pubmed: 32524754
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jun 2;162(11):777-84
pubmed: 26030634
Psychother Res. 2020 Mar;30(3):279-293
pubmed: 31394976
Psychol Med. 2021 Mar;51(4):634-644
pubmed: 31843031
Stat Med. 2013 Dec 30;32(30):5414-29
pubmed: 24123165
Res Synth Methods. 2012 Jun;3(2):111-25
pubmed: 26062085
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jan;67(1):73-86
pubmed: 24262771
Stat Med. 2021 Mar 15;40(6):1553-1573
pubmed: 33368415
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2019 Mar 14;29:e24
pubmed: 30867082
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 22;8(11):e026137
pubmed: 30798295
JAMA Psychiatry. 2021 Apr 1;78(4):361-371
pubmed: 33471111
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Behav Res Ther. 2013 Jul;51(7):344-51
pubmed: 23639300
Psychol Med. 2018 Sep;48(12):1945-1953
pubmed: 29368665
JAMA. 2015 Apr 28;313(16):1657-65
pubmed: 25919529