Background Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice; however, available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions is inconclusive. Therefore, we sought to compare and rank all available treatment interventions for the acute treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents. MethodsWe did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest, CINAHL, LiLACS, international trial registries, and the websites of regulatory agencies for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials from database inception until Jan 1, 2019. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 16 antidepressants, seven psychotherapies, and five combinations of antidepressant and psychotherapy that are used for the acute treatment of children and adolescents (≤18 years old and of both sexes) with depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of fewer than ten patients were excluded. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcome measures, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using validated methods. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to any cause). We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with credible intervals (CrIs) using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020841.Findings From 20 366 publications, we included 71 trials (9510 participants). Depressive disorders in most studies were moderate to severe. In terms of efficacy, fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more effective than CBT alone (-0•78, 95% CrI -1•55 to -0•01) and psychodynamic therapy (-1•14, -2•20 to -0•08), but not more effective than fluoxetine alone (-0•22, -0•86 to 0•42). No pharmacotherapy alone was more effective than psychotherapy alone. Only fluoxetine plus CBT and fluoxetine were significantly more effective than pill placebo or psychological controls (SMDs ranged from -1•73 to -0•51); and only interpersonal therapy was more effective than all psychological controls (-1•37 to -0•66). Nortriptyline (SMDs ranged from 1•04 to 2•22) and waiting list (SMDs ranged from 0•67 to 2•08) were less effective than most active interventions. In terms of acceptability, nefazodone and fluoxetine were associated with fewer dropouts than sertraline, imipramine, and desipramine (ORs ranged from 0•17 to 0•50); imipramine was associated with more dropouts than pill placebo, desvenlafaxine, fluoxetine plus CBT, and vilazodone (2•51 to 5•06). Most of the results were rated as "low" ...

Background: Recent studies have shown the efficacy for using spironolactone to treat heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the efficacy of spironolactone for heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unclear. This meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of spironolactone in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. Methods and results: We searched several databases including PubMed and the Cochrane Collaboration, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed spironolactone treatment in HFmrEF and HFpEF. Eleven RCTs including 4539 patients were included. Spironolactone reduced hospitalizations (odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73–0.95; P = .006), improved New York Heart Association functional classifications (NYHA-FC) (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.19–0.66; P = .001), decreased the levels of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) (mean difference [MD], − 44.80 pg/mL; 95% CI, −73.44–−16.17; P = .002), procollagen type I C-terminal propeptide (PICP) (MD, −27.04 ng/mL; 95% CI, −40.77–−13.32, P < .001) in HFmrEF and HFpEF. Besides, it improved 6-minute walking distances (6-MWD) (standard weighted mean difference [SMD], 0.45 m; 95% CI, 0.27–0.64; P < .001), decreased amino-terminal peptide of procollagen type-III (PIIINP) (SMD, −0.37 μg/L; 95% CI, −0.59–−0.15; P = .001) in HFpEF only. The risks of hyperkalemia ( P <.001) and gynecomastia ( P <.001) were increased. Conclusion: Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF could benefit from spironolactone treatment, with reduced hospitalizations, BNP levels, improved NYHA-FC, alleviated myocardial fibrosis by decreasing serum PICP in HFmrEF and HFpEF, decreased PIIINP levels and increased 6-MWD only in HFpEF. The risks of hyperkalemia and gynecomastia were significantly increased with the spironolactone treatment.

Adolescent depression is a common and serious mental disorder with unique characteristics that are distinct from adult depression. The adult non-human primate stress-induced model of depressive-like behavior is an excellent model for the study of mechanisms; however, an adolescent nonhuman primate model is still lacking. Ten male adolescent cynomolgus monkeys were divided into a chronic unpredictable mild stress (CUMS, n = 5) group and a control (CON, n = 5) group by age and weight-matched pairs. The CUMS group was exposed to multiple unpredictable mild stressors for five cycles over 55 days. At baseline, there were no differences between CUMS and CON groups. At endpoint, the CUMS group demonstrated significantly higher depressive-like behavior (huddle posture), and significantly lower locomotion compared with the CON group. Furthermore, depressive-like behavior increased from baseline to endpoint in the CUMS group, but not changed in the CON group. In the attempt for apple test, the CUMS group made significantly fewer attempts for the apple than the CON group. In the human intruder test, the CUMS group showed significantly higher anxiety-like behaviors in the stare phase than the CON group. Hair cortisol level was significantly higher in the CUMS group than the CON group at endpoint, and was also elevated from baseline to endpoint. Metabolic profiling of plasma at endpoint identified alterations in metabolite pathways which overlapped with those of adolescent depression patients. CUMS can induce depressive-like and anxiety-like behaviors, hypercortisolemia, and metabolic perturbations in adolescent cynomolgus monkeys. This is a promising model to study the mechanisms underlying adolescent depression.

BackgroundAvailable evidence on the comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents remains uncertain.ObjectiveWe aimed to compare and rank the different types and formats of psychotherapies for PTSD in children and adolescents.MethodsWe searched eight databases and other international registers up to 31 December 2020. The pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses estimated pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) and ORs with random-effects model. Efficacy at post-treatment and follow-up, acceptability, depressive and anxiety symptoms were measured.FindingsWe included 56 randomised controlled trials with 5327 patients comparing 14 different types of psychotherapies and 3 control conditions. For efficacy, cognitive processing therapy (CPT), behavioural therapy (BT), individual trauma-focused cognitive–behavioural therapy (TF-CBT), eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing, and group TF-CBT were significantly superior to all control conditions at post-treatment and follow-up (SMDs between −2.42 and −0.25). Moreover, CPT, BT and individual TF-CBT were more effective than supportive therapy (SMDs between −1.92 and −0.49). Results for depressive and anxiety symptoms were similar to the findings for the primary outcome. Most of the results were rated as ‘moderate’ to ‘very low’ in terms of confidence of evidence.ConclusionsCPT, BT and individual TF-CBT appear to be the best choices of psychotherapy for PTSD in young patients. Other types and different ways of delivering psychological treatment can be alternative options. Clinicians should consider the importance of each outcome and the patients’ preferences in real clinical practice.