The effect of treatment as usual on major depressive disorder: A meta-analysis

Spyros Kolovos, Maurits W. van Tulder, Pim Cuijpers, Amélie Prigent, Karine Chevreul, Heleen Riper, Judith E. Bosmans

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background Health-economic models are used to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of an intervention and typically include treatment as usual (TAU) as comparator. Part of the data used for these models are acquired from the literature and thus valid information is needed on the effects of TAU on depression. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to examine positive and negative outcomes of major depression for patients receiving TAU. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials including a TAU group for depression. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the criteria described in the “Risk of bias assessment tool”. Four separate meta-analyses were performed to estimate remission, response, reliable change and deterioration rates at short-term (≤6 months from baseline). Results Thirty-eight studies including 2099 patients in the TAU were identified. Nine studies (24%) met five or six quality criteria, 17 studies (44%) met three or four quality criteria and 12 studies (32%) met one or two quality criteria. After adjusting for publication bias, the first meta-analysis (n=33) showed that 33% of the patients remitted from depression. The second meta-analysis (n=13) demonstrated that 27% of the patients responded to treatment, meaning that their depressive symptom decreased at least 50% from baseline to follow-up measurement. The third meta-analysis (n=7) indicated that 31% of the patients showed a reliable change, meaning that their depressive symptoms improved more than expected by random variation alone. Finally, 12% of the patients deteriorated, meaning that their depressive symptoms became more severe. Limitations Statistical heterogeneity was substantial in most analyses and was not fully explained by subgroup analyses. The quality of the included studies was moderate. This may result in overestimation of the true effects. Conclusions The treatments labelled as TAU for depression were clinically and statistically heterogeneous. We demonstrated that a few patients benefited from TAU and a small number of patients suffered from worsened depressive symptoms at the short term. The results can be included in health-economic models that compare depression treatments to TAU.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)72-81
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Affective Disorders
Volume210
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2017

Cite this

Kolovos, S., van Tulder, M. W., Cuijpers, P., Prigent, A., Chevreul, K., Riper, H., & Bosmans, J. E. (2017). The effect of treatment as usual on major depressive disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 210, 72-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.013
Kolovos, Spyros ; van Tulder, Maurits W. ; Cuijpers, Pim ; Prigent, Amélie ; Chevreul, Karine ; Riper, Heleen ; Bosmans, Judith E. / The effect of treatment as usual on major depressive disorder : A meta-analysis. In: Journal of Affective Disorders. 2017 ; Vol. 210. pp. 72-81.
@article{bf0c1d06887d428cab8ab6d18861b17f,
title = "The effect of treatment as usual on major depressive disorder: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background Health-economic models are used to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of an intervention and typically include treatment as usual (TAU) as comparator. Part of the data used for these models are acquired from the literature and thus valid information is needed on the effects of TAU on depression. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to examine positive and negative outcomes of major depression for patients receiving TAU. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials including a TAU group for depression. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the criteria described in the “Risk of bias assessment tool”. Four separate meta-analyses were performed to estimate remission, response, reliable change and deterioration rates at short-term (≤6 months from baseline). Results Thirty-eight studies including 2099 patients in the TAU were identified. Nine studies (24{\%}) met five or six quality criteria, 17 studies (44{\%}) met three or four quality criteria and 12 studies (32{\%}) met one or two quality criteria. After adjusting for publication bias, the first meta-analysis (n=33) showed that 33{\%} of the patients remitted from depression. The second meta-analysis (n=13) demonstrated that 27{\%} of the patients responded to treatment, meaning that their depressive symptom decreased at least 50{\%} from baseline to follow-up measurement. The third meta-analysis (n=7) indicated that 31{\%} of the patients showed a reliable change, meaning that their depressive symptoms improved more than expected by random variation alone. Finally, 12{\%} of the patients deteriorated, meaning that their depressive symptoms became more severe. Limitations Statistical heterogeneity was substantial in most analyses and was not fully explained by subgroup analyses. The quality of the included studies was moderate. This may result in overestimation of the true effects. Conclusions The treatments labelled as TAU for depression were clinically and statistically heterogeneous. We demonstrated that a few patients benefited from TAU and a small number of patients suffered from worsened depressive symptoms at the short term. The results can be included in health-economic models that compare depression treatments to TAU.",
keywords = "Health-economic models, Major depression, Meta-analysis, Treatment as usual",
author = "Spyros Kolovos and {van Tulder}, {Maurits W.} and Pim Cuijpers and Am{\'e}lie Prigent and Karine Chevreul and Heleen Riper and Bosmans, {Judith E.}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.013",
language = "English",
volume = "210",
pages = "72--81",
journal = "Journal of Affective Disorders",
issn = "0165-0327",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Kolovos, S, van Tulder, MW, Cuijpers, P, Prigent, A, Chevreul, K, Riper, H & Bosmans, JE 2017, 'The effect of treatment as usual on major depressive disorder: A meta-analysis' Journal of Affective Disorders, vol. 210, pp. 72-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.013

The effect of treatment as usual on major depressive disorder : A meta-analysis. / Kolovos, Spyros; van Tulder, Maurits W.; Cuijpers, Pim; Prigent, Amélie; Chevreul, Karine; Riper, Heleen; Bosmans, Judith E.

In: Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 210, 01.03.2017, p. 72-81.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of treatment as usual on major depressive disorder

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Kolovos, Spyros

AU - van Tulder, Maurits W.

AU - Cuijpers, Pim

AU - Prigent, Amélie

AU - Chevreul, Karine

AU - Riper, Heleen

AU - Bosmans, Judith E.

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Background Health-economic models are used to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of an intervention and typically include treatment as usual (TAU) as comparator. Part of the data used for these models are acquired from the literature and thus valid information is needed on the effects of TAU on depression. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to examine positive and negative outcomes of major depression for patients receiving TAU. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials including a TAU group for depression. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the criteria described in the “Risk of bias assessment tool”. Four separate meta-analyses were performed to estimate remission, response, reliable change and deterioration rates at short-term (≤6 months from baseline). Results Thirty-eight studies including 2099 patients in the TAU were identified. Nine studies (24%) met five or six quality criteria, 17 studies (44%) met three or four quality criteria and 12 studies (32%) met one or two quality criteria. After adjusting for publication bias, the first meta-analysis (n=33) showed that 33% of the patients remitted from depression. The second meta-analysis (n=13) demonstrated that 27% of the patients responded to treatment, meaning that their depressive symptom decreased at least 50% from baseline to follow-up measurement. The third meta-analysis (n=7) indicated that 31% of the patients showed a reliable change, meaning that their depressive symptoms improved more than expected by random variation alone. Finally, 12% of the patients deteriorated, meaning that their depressive symptoms became more severe. Limitations Statistical heterogeneity was substantial in most analyses and was not fully explained by subgroup analyses. The quality of the included studies was moderate. This may result in overestimation of the true effects. Conclusions The treatments labelled as TAU for depression were clinically and statistically heterogeneous. We demonstrated that a few patients benefited from TAU and a small number of patients suffered from worsened depressive symptoms at the short term. The results can be included in health-economic models that compare depression treatments to TAU.

AB - Background Health-economic models are used to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of an intervention and typically include treatment as usual (TAU) as comparator. Part of the data used for these models are acquired from the literature and thus valid information is needed on the effects of TAU on depression. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to examine positive and negative outcomes of major depression for patients receiving TAU. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials including a TAU group for depression. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the criteria described in the “Risk of bias assessment tool”. Four separate meta-analyses were performed to estimate remission, response, reliable change and deterioration rates at short-term (≤6 months from baseline). Results Thirty-eight studies including 2099 patients in the TAU were identified. Nine studies (24%) met five or six quality criteria, 17 studies (44%) met three or four quality criteria and 12 studies (32%) met one or two quality criteria. After adjusting for publication bias, the first meta-analysis (n=33) showed that 33% of the patients remitted from depression. The second meta-analysis (n=13) demonstrated that 27% of the patients responded to treatment, meaning that their depressive symptom decreased at least 50% from baseline to follow-up measurement. The third meta-analysis (n=7) indicated that 31% of the patients showed a reliable change, meaning that their depressive symptoms improved more than expected by random variation alone. Finally, 12% of the patients deteriorated, meaning that their depressive symptoms became more severe. Limitations Statistical heterogeneity was substantial in most analyses and was not fully explained by subgroup analyses. The quality of the included studies was moderate. This may result in overestimation of the true effects. Conclusions The treatments labelled as TAU for depression were clinically and statistically heterogeneous. We demonstrated that a few patients benefited from TAU and a small number of patients suffered from worsened depressive symptoms at the short term. The results can be included in health-economic models that compare depression treatments to TAU.

KW - Health-economic models

KW - Major depression

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Treatment as usual

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85007047689&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.013

DO - 10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.013

M3 - Review article

VL - 210

SP - 72

EP - 81

JO - Journal of Affective Disorders

JF - Journal of Affective Disorders

SN - 0165-0327

ER -