Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis1, Sarah F Allen1, Richard I G Holt2, Richard Roberts3, Arie Nouwen4, Norman Sartorius5. 1. Department of Health Sciences, Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK. 2. Human Development and Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 3. Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 4. Department of Psychology, Middlesex University, London, UK. 5. Association for the Improvement of Mental Health Programmes, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide an estimate of the effect of interventions on comorbid depressive disorder (MDD) or subthreshold depression in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials evaluating the outcome of depression treatments in diabetes and comorbid MDD or subthreshold symptoms published before August 2019 compared to care as usual (CAU), placebo, waiting list (WL), or active comparator treatment as in a comparative effectiveness trial (CET). Primary outcomes were depressive symptom severity and glycemic control. Cohen's d is reported. RESULTS: Forty-three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected, and 32 RCTs comprising 3,543 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that, compared to CAU, placebo or WL, all interventions showed a significant effect on combined outcome 0,485 (95% CI 0.360; 0.609). All interventions showed a significant effect on depression. Pharmacological treatment, group therapy, psychotherapy, and collaborative care had a significant effect on glycemic control. High baseline depression score was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1 c and depressive outcome. High baseline HbA1 c was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1 c. CONCLUSION: All treatments are effective for comorbid depression in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Over the last decade, new interventions with large effect sizes have been introduced, such as group-based therapy, online treatment, and exercise. Although all interventions were effective for depression, not all treatments were effective for glycemic control. Effective interventions in comorbid depressive disorder may not be as effective in comorbid subthreshold depression. Baseline depression and HbA1 c scores modify the treatment effect. Based on the findings, we provide guidance for treatment depending on patient profile and desired outcome, and discuss possible avenues for further research.
OBJECTIVE: To provide an estimate of the effect of interventions on comorbid depressive disorder (MDD) or subthreshold depression in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials evaluating the outcome of depression treatments in diabetes and comorbid MDD or subthreshold symptoms published before August 2019 compared to care as usual (CAU), placebo, waiting list (WL), or active comparator treatment as in a comparative effectiveness trial (CET). Primary outcomes were depressive symptom severity and glycemic control. Cohen's d is reported. RESULTS: Forty-three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected, and 32 RCTs comprising 3,543 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that, compared to CAU, placebo or WL, all interventions showed a significant effect on combined outcome 0,485 (95% CI 0.360; 0.609). All interventions showed a significant effect on depression. Pharmacological treatment, group therapy, psychotherapy, and collaborative care had a significant effect on glycemic control. High baseline depression score was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1 c and depressive outcome. High baseline HbA1 c was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1 c. CONCLUSION: All treatments are effective for comorbid depression in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Over the last decade, new interventions with large effect sizes have been introduced, such as group-based therapy, online treatment, and exercise. Although all interventions were effective for depression, not all treatments were effective for glycemic control. Effective interventions in comorbid depressive disorder may not be as effective in comorbid subthreshold depression. Baseline depression and HbA1 c scores modify the treatment effect. Based on the findings, we provide guidance for treatment depending on patient profile and desired outcome, and discuss possible avenues for further research.
Authors: Annelies Brouwer; Daniel H van Raalte; Hoang-Ton Nguyen; Femke Rutters; Peter M van de Ven; Petra J M Elders; Annette C Moll; Eus J W Van Someren; Frank J Snoek; Aartjan T F Beekman; Marijke A Bremmer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: K Annika Tovote; Joke Fleer; Evelien Snippe; Anita C T M Peeters; Paul M G Emmelkamp; Robbert Sanderman; Thera P Links; Maya J Schroevers Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Sanne H M Kremers; Sarah H Wild; Petra J M Elders; Joline W J Beulens; David J T Campbell; Frans Pouwer; Nanna Lindekilde; Maartje de Wit; Cathy Lloyd; Femke Rutters Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 10.460
Authors: Emma A Nieuwenhuijse; Jeroen N Struijs; Stephen P Sutch; Mattijs E Numans; Rimke C Vos Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 4.213
Authors: Rebecca Fitton; Jennifer Sweetman; William Heseltine-Carp; Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis Journal: Brain Behav Immun Health Date: 2022-09-19
Authors: Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis; Sarah F Allen; Richard I G Holt; Richard Roberts; Arie Nouwen; Norman Sartorius Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 3.405