Lemmy Schakel1,2, Dieuwke S Veldhuijzen3,4, Paige I Crompvoets3, Jos A Bosch5, Sheldon Cohen6, Henriët van Middendorp3,4, Simone A Joosten7, Tom H M Ottenhoff7, Leo G Visser7, Andrea W M Evers3,4,8. 1. Health, Medical and Neuropsychology Unit, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands, l.schakel@fsw.leidenuniv.nl. 2. Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands, l.schakel@fsw.leidenuniv.nl. 3. Health, Medical and Neuropsychology Unit, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 7. Department of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is consistent evidence showing an interplay between psychological processes and immune function in health and disease processes. OBJECTIVES: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide a concise overview of the effectiveness of stress-reducing psychological interventions on the activation of immune responses in both healthy subjects and patients. METHODS: Included are 3 types of challenges: in vivo, in vitro, and psychophysiological. Such challenges are designed to mimic naturally occurring immune-related threats. RESULTS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and PsychInfo, resulting in 75 eligible studies. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Across all studies, a small-to-medium effect size was found for the effects of psychological interventions on optimization of the immune function (g = 0.33; 95% CI 0.22-0.43). While the largest effects were found for in vivo immune-related challenges (g = 0.61; 95% CI 0.34-0.88; especially on studies that incorporated skin tests and wound healing), studies incorporating psychophysiological challenges and in vitro immune-related stimulations similarly suggest more optimal immune responses among those receiving stress-reducing interventions (g = 0.28; 95% CI 0.15-0.42). CONCLUSION: These findings showed substantial heterogeneity depending on the type of challenge, the study populations, and the intervention types. These data demonstrate support for the effectiveness of stress-reducing psychological interventions in improving immunity in studies that tested immune function by means of incorporating an in vivo,in vitro, or psychophysiological challenge. Future research should more consistently incorporate challenges into the study design to gather more insights in the mechanisms underlying the optimized immune function following a psychological intervention. This is also relevant for clinical practice, as psychological interventions can possibly supplement, or at least partially replace, current drug treatments in various somatic conditions to reduce side effects.
BACKGROUND: There is consistent evidence showing an interplay between psychological processes and immune function in health and disease processes. OBJECTIVES: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide a concise overview of the effectiveness of stress-reducing psychological interventions on the activation of immune responses in both healthy subjects and patients. METHODS: Included are 3 types of challenges: in vivo, in vitro, and psychophysiological. Such challenges are designed to mimic naturally occurring immune-related threats. RESULTS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and PsychInfo, resulting in 75 eligible studies. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Across all studies, a small-to-medium effect size was found for the effects of psychological interventions on optimization of the immune function (g = 0.33; 95% CI 0.22-0.43). While the largest effects were found for in vivo immune-related challenges (g = 0.61; 95% CI 0.34-0.88; especially on studies that incorporated skin tests and wound healing), studies incorporating psychophysiological challenges and in vitro immune-related stimulations similarly suggest more optimal immune responses among those receiving stress-reducing interventions (g = 0.28; 95% CI 0.15-0.42). CONCLUSION: These findings showed substantial heterogeneity depending on the type of challenge, the study populations, and the intervention types. These data demonstrate support for the effectiveness of stress-reducing psychological interventions in improving immunity in studies that tested immune function by means of incorporating an in vivo,in vitro, or psychophysiological challenge. Future research should more consistently incorporate challenges into the study design to gather more insights in the mechanisms underlying the optimized immune function following a psychological intervention. This is also relevant for clinical practice, as psychological interventions can possibly supplement, or at least partially replace, current drug treatments in various somatic conditions to reduce side effects.
Authors: Barbara L Andersen; Lisa M Thornton; Charles L Shapiro; William B Farrar; Bethany L Mundy; Hae-Chung Yang; William E Carson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Barbara L Andersen; William B Farrar; Deanna Golden-Kreutz; Charles F Emery; Ronald Glaser; Timothy Crespin; William E Carson Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2007-04-27 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Oleg Eremin; Mary B Walker; Edna Simpson; Steven D Heys; Antoine K Ah-See; Andrew W Hutcheon; Keith N Ogston; Tarun K Sarkar; Ashok Segar; Leslie G Walker Journal: Breast Date: 2008-11-12 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Lemmy Schakel; Dieuwke S Veldhuijzen; Henriët van Middendorp; Corine Prins; Anne M H F Drittij; Frank Vrieling; Leo G Visser; Tom H M Ottenhoff; Simone A Joosten; Andrea W M Evers Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Daan L de Frel; Douwe E Atsma; Hanno Pijl; Jacob C Seidell; Pieter J M Leenen; Willem A Dik; Elisabeth F C van Rossum Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2020-11-19
Authors: Julia Hinterdobler; Heribert Schunkert; Thorsten Kessler; Hendrik B Sager Journal: Antioxid Redox Signal Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 8.401