Alice X Huang1, Kevin Delucchi1, Laura B Dunn2, J Craig Nelson3. 1. University of California, Department of Psychiatry and Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute, San Francisco, CA. 2. University of California, Department of Psychiatry and Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute, San Francisco, CA; University of California, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA. 3. University of California, Department of Psychiatry and Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: CraigN@lppi.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of psychotherapy in late-life depression and to determine the effect of the type of control group on the magnitude of psychotherapy effects. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled psychotherapy trials for late-life depression. SETTING: Outpatient clinics or in subjects' home. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects aged 55 years or older with acute-phase depressive disorder. MEASUREMENTS: Change in depressive symptoms was measured with validated scales. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated for each therapy-control contrast, as meta-analytic summaries for contrasts using a similar control, and for all contrasts combined. RESULTS: The search identified 27 trials with 37 therapy-control contrasts and 2,245 subjects. Trials utilized five types of control groups (waitlist, treatment-as-usual, attention, supportive therapy, placebo). In the combined contrasts, psychotherapy was effective (SMD: 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51, 0.95; z=6.42, p<0.00001). The SMD varied widely (from 0.05 to 1.36) and significantly (χ2=35.67, df=4, p<0.00001) between subgroups by type of control. In five trials that compared psychotherapy with supportive therapy, the SMD was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.16, 0.61; z=3.37, p<0.0007; I2=0%). The SMD was 0.11 within the waitlist controls and 1.10 within the supportive therapy subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Psychotherapy is effective for late-life depression, but the magnitude of the effect varies widely with the type of control group. Supportive therapy appears to best control for the nonspecific elements of psychotherapy and is associated with considerable change itself, but few trials have utilized it as a control.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of psychotherapy in late-life depression and to determine the effect of the type of control group on the magnitude of psychotherapy effects. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled psychotherapy trials for late-life depression. SETTING:Outpatient clinics or in subjects' home. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects aged 55 years or older with acute-phase depressive disorder. MEASUREMENTS: Change in depressive symptoms was measured with validated scales. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated for each therapy-control contrast, as meta-analytic summaries for contrasts using a similar control, and for all contrasts combined. RESULTS: The search identified 27 trials with 37 therapy-control contrasts and 2,245 subjects. Trials utilized five types of control groups (waitlist, treatment-as-usual, attention, supportive therapy, placebo). In the combined contrasts, psychotherapy was effective (SMD: 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51, 0.95; z=6.42, p<0.00001). The SMD varied widely (from 0.05 to 1.36) and significantly (χ2=35.67, df=4, p<0.00001) between subgroups by type of control. In five trials that compared psychotherapy with supportive therapy, the SMD was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.16, 0.61; z=3.37, p<0.0007; I2=0%). The SMD was 0.11 within the waitlist controls and 1.10 within the supportive therapy subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Psychotherapy is effective for late-life depression, but the magnitude of the effect varies widely with the type of control group. Supportive therapy appears to best control for the nonspecific elements of psychotherapy and is associated with considerable change itself, but few trials have utilized it as a control.
Authors: Sarah H Lisanby; Shawn M McClintock; George Alexopoulos; Samuel H Bailine; Elisabeth Bernhardt; Mimi C Briggs; C Munro Cullum; Zhi-De Deng; Mary Dooley; Emma T Geduldig; Robert M Greenberg; Mustafa M Husain; Styliani Kaliora; Rebecca G Knapp; Vassilios Latoussakis; Lauren S Liebman; William V McCall; Martina Mueller; Georgios Petrides; Joan Prudic; Peter B Rosenquist; Matthew V Rudorfer; Shirlene Sampson; Abeba A Teklehaimanot; Kristen G Tobias; Richard D Weiner; Robert C Young; Charles H Kellner Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Glenda M MacQueen; Benicio N Frey; Zahinoor Ismail; Natalia Jaworska; Meir Steiner; Ryan J Van Lieshout; Sidney H Kennedy; Raymond W Lam; Roumen V Milev; Sagar V Parikh; Arun V Ravindran Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Carmen Andreescu; Olusola Ajilore; Howard J Aizenstein; Kimberly Albert; Meryl A Butters; Bennett A Landman; Helmet T Karim; Robert Krafty; Warren D Taylor Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Patrick J Brown; Bret R Rutherford; Kristine Yaffe; Jane M Tandler; Justina Laurence Ray; Emily Pott; Sarah Chung; Steven P Roose Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 4.105