Efficacy of antidepressants and psychological therapies in irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis

Gastroenterology Division, McMaster University Medical Centre, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Gut (Impact Factor: 13.32). 12/2008; 58(3):367-78. DOI: 10.1136/gut.2008.163162
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional gastrointestinal disorder. Evidence for treatment of the condition with antidepressants and psychological therapies is conflicting.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to May 2008).
RCTs based in primary, secondary and tertiary care.
Adults with IBS.
Antidepressants versus placebo, and psychological therapies versus control therapy or "usual management".
Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated from the reciprocal of the risk difference.
The search strategy identified 571 citations. Thirty-two RCTs were eligible for inclusion: 19 compared psychological therapies with control therapy or "usual management", 12 compared antidepressants with placebo, and one compared both psychological therapy and antidepressants with placebo. Study quality was generally good for antidepressant but poor for psychological therapy trials. The RR of IBS symptoms persisting with antidepressants versus placebo was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.78), with similar treatment effects for both tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The RR of symptoms persisting with psychological therapies was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.79). The NNT was 4 for both interventions.
Antidepressants are effective in the treatment of IBS. There is less high-quality evidence for routine use of psychological therapies in IBS, but available data suggest these may be of comparable efficacy.


Available from: Alexander C Ford, Mar 30, 2015
1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diagnosis related costs analyses are the subject of science and research and are of great relevance and importance for decision makers in the hospital and for funding bodies, but also for international health policy. Up to now, standardized costs analyses with valid costs data have not been available for inpatient care of patients with affective and somatoform disorders. This clinical picture presents a major challenge for the provision of outpatient and inpatient care. An interdisciplinary approach in an inpatient setting can be beneficial for already "chronified" patients with severe forms of progression. Because of its structural and procedural demands, this type of care is associated with a greater expenditure of resources. Costs data from the years 2008 to 2012 were analyzed for a total of 17,424 hospitalized patients in more than 200 different hospitals in Germany. The study compared the costs of treating patients with the main diagnosis affective and somatoform disorders using standardized interdisciplinary therapy, with the costs of conventional therapy. Interdisciplinary patient care is characterized by a high proportion of the costs derived from the structural and procedural implementation and the medical and nursing care. For interdisciplinary therapy with a mean period of hospitalization of 15.2 days, over 60% of the total costs were incurred by the personnel and material costs of the medical and non-medical infrastructure. The outlay is considerably greater than would be incurred by a conventional therapeutic approach without interdisciplinary therapy. For the first time, detailed diagnosis-related costs data are published which were generated by consistent, standardized cost unit accounting. An interdisciplinary, holistic approach to the clinical picture results in a significant increase in costs for the hospitals.
    Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 01/2014; 7:245-52. DOI:10.2147/RMHP.S73724
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: - Objectives Psychological interventions can alleviate the symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and psychological distress commonly reported among IBS sufferers. However, the theoretical underpinnings and intervention techniques used by such interventions vary considerably. This study aimed to identify which theoretical approaches and techniques lead to greater improvements in IBS symptoms and psychological well-being within psychological interventions for IBS. Methods Outcome data were extracted from 48 randomized controlled trials testing psychological treatments for IBS. Theoretical intervention targets and intervention techniques of each study were identified. Cumulative effect sizes were calculated for pain, bowel dysfunction, composite symptom scores, psychological distress, and health-related quality of life. Comparative analyses contrasted the effect sizes of studies which included each intervention technique to those which did not. Results Cumulatively, interventions significantly improved all outcomes, with effect sizes (Hedges' g) ranging from 0.32 to 0.64. Interventions which stated a theoretical intervention target, prompted self-monitoring of symptoms and cognitions, provided tailored feedback linking symptoms and cognitions, utilized problem solving or assertiveness training and provided general support had greater effects upon symptom and well-being outcomes than interventions which did not (all P < .05). Across all studies, improvements in psychological distress were associated with improvements in composite symptom scores (P < .01). Conclusions This study identifies a set of techniques associated with improvements in IBS symptoms and psychological well-being in existing interventions, and provides initial evidence for the link between improvements in psychological distress and IBS composite symptom scores. These findings can aid the development and refinement of psychological treatments for IBS.
    Journal of Psychosomatic Research 12/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.12.009 · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • Source