論文

査読有り
2016年

Psychological therapies versus pharmacological interventions for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults

COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
  • Hissei Imai
  • ,
  • Aran Tajika
  • ,
  • Peiyao Chen
  • ,
  • Alessandro Pompoli
  • ,
  • Toshi A. Furukawa

4
10
開始ページ
CD011004
終了ページ
記述言語
英語
掲載種別
DOI
10.1002/14651858.CD011170.pub2
出版者・発行元
WILEY

Background
Panic disorder is common and deleterious to mental well-being. Psychological therapies and pharmacological interventions are both used as treatments for panic disorder with and without agoraphobia. However, there are no up-to-date reviews on the comparative efficacy and acceptability of the two treatment modalities, and such a review is necessary for improved treatment planning for this disorder.
Objectives
To assess the efficacy and acceptability of psychological therapies versus pharmacological interventions for panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in adults.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group Specialised Register on 11 September 2015. This register contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1950 to present), Embase (1974 to present), and PsycINFO (1967 to present). We cross-checked reference lists of relevant papers and systematic reviews. We did not apply any restrictions on date, language, or publication status.
Selection criteria
We included all randomised controlled trials comparing psychological therapies with pharmacological interventions for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia as diagnosed by operationalised criteria in adults.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved any disagreements in consultation with a third review author. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using standardised mean differences (with 95% CI). We used the random-effects model throughout.
Main results
We included 16 studies with a total of 966 participants in the present review. Eight of the studies were conducted in Europe, four in the USA, two in the Middle East, and one in Southeast Asia.
None of the studies reported long-term remission/response (long term being six months or longer from treatment commencement).
There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17; 6 studies; 334 participants) or short-term response (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.86; 5 studies; 277 participants) (very low-quality evidence), and no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and SSRIs in treatment acceptability as measured using dropouts for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.22; 6 studies; 334 participants; low-quality evidence).
There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and tricyclic antidepressants in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.09; 3 studies; 229 participants), short-term response (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.10; 4 studies; 270 participants), or dropouts for any reason (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30; 5 studies; 430 participants) (low-quality evidence).
There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and other antidepressants in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.67; 3 studies; 135 participants; very low-quality evidence) and evidence that psychological therapies did not significantly increase or decrease the short-term response over other antidepressants (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37; 3 studies; 128 participants) or dropouts for any reason (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.65; 3 studies; 180 participants) (low-quality evidence).
There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and benzodiazepines in terms of short-term remission (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.65; 3 studies; 95 participants), short-term response (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.58; 2 studies; 69 participants), or dropouts for any reason (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.36; 3 studies; 116 participants) (very low-quality evidence).
There was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and either antidepressant alone or antidepressants plus benzodiazepines in terms of short-term remission (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05; 11 studies; 663 participants) and short-term response (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 12 studies; 800 participants) (low-quality evidence), and there was no evidence of a difference between psychological therapies and either antidepressants alone or antidepressants plus benzodiazepines in terms of treatment acceptability as measured by dropouts for any reason (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.51; 13 studies; 909 participants; very low-quality evidence). The risk of selection bias and reporting bias was largely unclear. Preplanned subgroup and sensitivity analyses limited to trials with longer-term, quality-controlled, or individual psychological therapies suggested that antidepressants might be more effective than psychological therapies for some outcomes.
There were no data to contribute to a comparison between psychological therapies and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and subsequent adverse effects.
Authors' conclusions
The evidence in this review was often imprecise. The superiority of either therapy over the other is uncertain due to the low and very low quality of the evidence with regard to short-term efficacy and treatment acceptability, and no data were available regarding adverse effects.
The sensitivity analysis and investigation of the sources of heterogeneity indicated three possible influential factors: quality control of psychological therapies, the length of intervention, and the individual modality of psychological therapies.
Future studies should examine the long-term effects after intervention or treatment continuation and should provide information on risk of bias, especially with regard to selection and reporting biases.

リンク情報
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011170.pub2
PubMed
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27071857
Web of Science
https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=JSTA_CEL&SrcApp=J_Gate_JST&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS:000389599900014&DestApp=WOS_CPL
ID情報
  • DOI : 10.1002/14651858.CD011170.pub2
  • ISSN : 1469-493X
  • eISSN : 1361-6137
  • PubMed ID : 27071857
  • Web of Science ID : WOS:000389599900014

エクスポート
BibTeX RIS