Biological markers evaluated in randomized trials of psychological treatments for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ioana A. Cristea, Eirini Karyotaki, Steven D. Hollon, Pim Cuijpers, Claudio Gentili

Research output: Contribution to JournalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Though it is widely believed that psychotherapy changes biology, this contention is largely based on observational data, subject to confounding. We report the first systematic review and meta-analysis of biological variables assessed, as outcomes or predictors of response, in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy for adult depression. Fifty-one trials (5123 participants) and a pooled analysis were included. Biological markers were outcomes in 43 studies and predictors of treatment response in 9. At post-treatment, psychotherapy could not be distinguished from control conditions for glycaemic control (Hb1AC), 7 trials, Hedges’ g= -.01, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.29, I 2 = 65% and cortisol concentration after-wake, 5 trials, Hedges’ g= -.19, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.06, I 2 = 0%. Follow-up results were similar. For the other biological domains (immunological, neurobiological, inflammatory, weight, blood pressure), overall findings were mixed and often inconsistent. Few trials investigated prediction of response, with only neuroimaging markers showing promise. Across domains, we found limited evidence that benefits of psychological treatments for depression translate to biological outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)32-44
Number of pages13
JournalNeuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
Volume101
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2019

Fingerprint

Psychotherapy
Meta-Analysis
Biomarkers
Depression
Psychology
Neuroimaging
Hydrocortisone
Randomized Controlled Trials
Blood Pressure
Weights and Measures

Keywords

  • Biomarkers
  • Depression
  • Meta-analysis
  • Psychotherapy
  • Randomized controlled trial

Cite this

@article{623ce9d3ecb74575be7ba95904eed8b6,
title = "Biological markers evaluated in randomized trials of psychological treatments for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Though it is widely believed that psychotherapy changes biology, this contention is largely based on observational data, subject to confounding. We report the first systematic review and meta-analysis of biological variables assessed, as outcomes or predictors of response, in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy for adult depression. Fifty-one trials (5123 participants) and a pooled analysis were included. Biological markers were outcomes in 43 studies and predictors of treatment response in 9. At post-treatment, psychotherapy could not be distinguished from control conditions for glycaemic control (Hb1AC), 7 trials, Hedges’ g= -.01, 95{\%} CI -0.30 to 0.29, I 2 = 65{\%} and cortisol concentration after-wake, 5 trials, Hedges’ g= -.19, 95{\%} CI -0.45 to 0.06, I 2 = 0{\%}. Follow-up results were similar. For the other biological domains (immunological, neurobiological, inflammatory, weight, blood pressure), overall findings were mixed and often inconsistent. Few trials investigated prediction of response, with only neuroimaging markers showing promise. Across domains, we found limited evidence that benefits of psychological treatments for depression translate to biological outcomes.",
keywords = "Biomarkers, Depression, Meta-analysis, Psychotherapy, Randomized controlled trial",
author = "Cristea, {Ioana A.} and Eirini Karyotaki and Hollon, {Steven D.} and Pim Cuijpers and Claudio Gentili",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.022",
language = "English",
volume = "101",
pages = "32--44",
journal = "Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews",
issn = "0149-7634",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

Biological markers evaluated in randomized trials of psychological treatments for depression : a systematic review and meta-analysis. / Cristea, Ioana A.; Karyotaki, Eirini; Hollon, Steven D.; Cuijpers, Pim; Gentili, Claudio.

In: Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, Vol. 101, 01.06.2019, p. 32-44.

Research output: Contribution to JournalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biological markers evaluated in randomized trials of psychological treatments for depression

T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Cristea, Ioana A.

AU - Karyotaki, Eirini

AU - Hollon, Steven D.

AU - Cuijpers, Pim

AU - Gentili, Claudio

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - Though it is widely believed that psychotherapy changes biology, this contention is largely based on observational data, subject to confounding. We report the first systematic review and meta-analysis of biological variables assessed, as outcomes or predictors of response, in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy for adult depression. Fifty-one trials (5123 participants) and a pooled analysis were included. Biological markers were outcomes in 43 studies and predictors of treatment response in 9. At post-treatment, psychotherapy could not be distinguished from control conditions for glycaemic control (Hb1AC), 7 trials, Hedges’ g= -.01, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.29, I 2 = 65% and cortisol concentration after-wake, 5 trials, Hedges’ g= -.19, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.06, I 2 = 0%. Follow-up results were similar. For the other biological domains (immunological, neurobiological, inflammatory, weight, blood pressure), overall findings were mixed and often inconsistent. Few trials investigated prediction of response, with only neuroimaging markers showing promise. Across domains, we found limited evidence that benefits of psychological treatments for depression translate to biological outcomes.

AB - Though it is widely believed that psychotherapy changes biology, this contention is largely based on observational data, subject to confounding. We report the first systematic review and meta-analysis of biological variables assessed, as outcomes or predictors of response, in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy for adult depression. Fifty-one trials (5123 participants) and a pooled analysis were included. Biological markers were outcomes in 43 studies and predictors of treatment response in 9. At post-treatment, psychotherapy could not be distinguished from control conditions for glycaemic control (Hb1AC), 7 trials, Hedges’ g= -.01, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.29, I 2 = 65% and cortisol concentration after-wake, 5 trials, Hedges’ g= -.19, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.06, I 2 = 0%. Follow-up results were similar. For the other biological domains (immunological, neurobiological, inflammatory, weight, blood pressure), overall findings were mixed and often inconsistent. Few trials investigated prediction of response, with only neuroimaging markers showing promise. Across domains, we found limited evidence that benefits of psychological treatments for depression translate to biological outcomes.

KW - Biomarkers

KW - Depression

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Psychotherapy

KW - Randomized controlled trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063762934&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063762934&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.022

DO - 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.022

M3 - Review article

VL - 101

SP - 32

EP - 44

JO - Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews

JF - Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews

SN - 0149-7634

ER -