Kayleigh M Kew

Psychological and pharmacological interventions for social anxiety disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Summary Background Social anxiety disorder—a chronic and naturally unremitting disease that causes substantial impairment—can be treated with pharmacological, psychological, and self-help interventions. We aimed to compare these interventions and to identify which are most effective for the acute treatment of social anxiety disorder in adults. Methods We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of interventions for adults with social anxiety disorder, identified from published and unpublished sources between 1988 and Sept 13, 2013. We analysed interventions by class and individually. Outcomes were validated measures of social anxiety, reported as standardised mean differences (SMDs) compared with a waitlist reference. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012003146. Findings We included 101 trials (13 164 participants) of 41 interventions or control conditions (17 classes) in the analyses. Classes of pharmacological interventions that had greater effects on outcomes compared with waitlist were monoamine oxidase inhibitors (SMD −1·01, 95% credible interval [CrI] −1·56 to −0·45), benzodiazepines (−0·96, −1·56 to −0·36), selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors and serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs and SNRIs; −0·91, −1·23 to −0·60), and anticonvulsants (−0·81, −1·36 to −0·28). Compared with waitlist, efficacious classes of psychological interventions were individual cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT; SMD −1·19, 95% CrI −1·56 to −0·81), group CBT (−0·92, −1·33 to −0·51), exposure and social skills (−0·86, −1·42 to −0·29), self-help with support (−0·86, −1·36 to −0·36), self-help without support (−0·75, −1·25 to −0·26), and psychodynamic psychotherapy (−0·62, −0·93 to −0·31). Individual CBT compared with psychological placebo (SMD −0·56, 95% CrI −1·00 to −0·11), and SSRIs and SNRIs compared with pill placebo (−0·44, −0·67 to −0·22) were the only classes of interventions that had greater effects on outcomes than appropriate placebo. Individual CBT also had a greater effect than psychodynamic psychotherapy (SMD −0·56, 95% CrI −1·03 to −0·11) and interpersonal psychotherapy, mindfulness, and supportive therapy (−0·82, −1·41 to −0·24). Interpretation Individual CBT (which other studies have shown to have a lower risk of side-effects than pharmacotherapy) is associated with large effect sizes. Thus, it should be regarded as the best intervention for the initial treatment of social anxiety disorder. For individuals who decline psychological intervention, SSRIs show the most consistent evidence of benefit. Funding National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Recognition, assessment and treatment of social anxiety disorder: summary of NICE guidance

Social anxiety disorder is one of the most persistent and common of the anxiety disorders, with lifetime prevalence rates in Europe of 6.7% (range 3.9-13.7%).1 It often coexists with depression, substance use disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.2 It can severely impair a person’s daily functioning by impeding the formation of relationships, reducing quality of life, and negatively affecting performance at work or school. Despite this, and the fact that effective treatments exist, only about half of people with this condition seek treatment, many after waiting 10-15 years.3 Although about 40% of those who develop the condition in childhood or adolescence recover before adulthood,4 for many the disorder persists into adulthood, with the chance of spontaneous recovery then limited compared with other mental health problems. This article summarises the most recent recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on recognising, assessing, and treating social anxiety disorder in children, young people, and adults.5 NICE recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the best available evidence and explicit consideration of cost effectiveness. When minimal evidence is available, recommendations are based on the Guideline Development Group’s experience and opinion of what constitutes good practice. Evidence levels for the recommendations are given in italic in square brackets. ### Principles for working with all people with social anxiety disorder When the person arrives for the appointment, offer to meet them or alert them …

The Cost Effectiveness of Psychological and Pharmacological Interventions for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Model-Based Economic Analysis.

Background Social anxiety disorder is one of the most persistent and common anxiety disorders. Individually delivered psychological therapies are the most effective treatment options for adults with social anxiety disorder, but they are associated with high intervention costs. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the relative cost effectiveness of a variety of psychological and pharmacological interventions for adults with social anxiety disorder. Methods A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of 28 interventions for social anxiety disorder from the perspective of the British National Health Service and personal social services. Efficacy data were derived from a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Other model input parameters were based on published literature and national sources, supplemented by expert opinion. Results Individual cognitive therapy was the most cost-effective intervention for adults with social anxiety disorder, followed by generic individual cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), phenelzine and book-based self-help without support. Other drugs, group-based psychological interventions and other individually delivered psychological interventions were less cost-effective. Results were influenced by limited evidence suggesting superiority of psychological interventions over drugs in retaining long-term effects. The analysis did not take into account side effects of drugs. Conclusion Various forms of individually delivered CBT appear to be the most cost-effective options for the treatment of adults with social anxiety disorder. Consideration of side effects of drugs would only strengthen this conclusion, as it would improve even further the cost effectiveness of individually delivered CBT relative to phenelzine, which was the next most cost-effective option, due to the serious side effects associated with phenelzine. Further research needs to determine more accurately the long-term comparative benefits and harms of psychological and pharmacological interventions for social anxiety disorder and establish their relative cost effectiveness with greater certainty.

Tailoring asthma treatment on eosinophilic markers (exhaled nitric oxide or sputum eosinophils): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Asthma guidelines guide health practitioners to adjust treatments to the minimum level required for asthma control. As many people with asthma have an eosinophilic endotype, tailoring asthma medications based on airway eosinophilic levels (sputum eosinophils or exhaled nitric oxide, FeNO) may improve asthma outcomes. Objective To synthesise the evidence from our updated Cochrane systematic reviews, for tailoring asthma medication based on eosinophilic inflammatory markers (sputum analysis and FeNO) for improving asthma-related outcomes in children and adults. Data sources Cochrane reviews with standardised searches up to February 2017. Study selection The Cochrane reviews included randomised controlled comparisons of tailoring asthma medications based on sputum analysis or FeNO compared with controls (primarily clinical symptoms and/or spirometry/peak flow). Results The 16 included studies of FeNO-based management (seven in adults) and 6 of sputum-based management (five in adults) were clinically heterogeneous. On follow-up, participants randomised to the sputum eosinophils strategy (compared with controls) were significantly less likely to have exacerbations (62 vs 82/100 participants with ≥1 exacerbation; OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62). For the FeNO strategy, the respective numbers were adults OR 0.60 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.84) and children 0.58 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.75). However, there were no significant group differences for either strategy on daily inhaled corticosteroids dose (at end of study), asthma control or lung function. Conclusion Adjusting treatment based on airway eosinophilic markers reduced the likelihood of asthma exacerbations but had no significant impact on asthma control or lung function.

Axitinib, cabozantinib, everolimus, nivolumab, sunitinib and best supportive care in previously treated renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative evidence to guide decisions between them. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of axitinib (Inlyta®, Pfizer Inc., NY, USA), cabozantinib (Cabometyx®, Ipsen, Slough, UK), everolimus (Afinitor®, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland), nivolumab (Opdivo®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NY, USA), sunitinib (Sutent®, Pfizer, Inc., NY, USA) and best supportive care (BSC) for people with amRCC who were previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy. DATA SOURCES A systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were objective response rates (ORRs), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January and June 2016 for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Two reviewers abstracted data and performed critical appraisals. REVIEW METHODS A fixed-effects MTC was conducted for OS, PFS [hazard ratios (HRs)] and ORR (odds ratios), and all were presented with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The RCT data formed the primary analyses, with non-RCTs and studies rated as being at a high risk of bias included in sensitivity analyses (SAs). HRQoL and AE data were summarised narratively. A partitioned survival model with health states for pre progression, post progression and death was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis. Survival curves were fitted to the PFS and OS results from the MTC. A systematic review of HRQoL was undertaken to identify sources of health state utility values. RESULTS Four RCTs (n = 2618) and eight non-RCTs (n = 1526) were included. The results show that cabozantinib has longer PFS than everolimus (HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.63) and both treatments are better than BSC. Both cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.53 to 0.82) and nivolumab (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.60 to 0.89) have longer OS than everolimus. SAs were consistent with the primary analyses. The economic analysis, using drug list prices, shows that everolimus may be more cost-effective than BSC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), as it is likely to be considered an end-of-life treatment. Cabozantinib has an ICER of £126,000 per QALY compared with everolimus and is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nivolumab was dominated by cabozantinib (i.e. more costly and less effective) and axitinib was dominated by everolimus. LIMITATIONS Treatment comparisons were limited by the small number of RCTs. However, the key limitation of the analysis is the absence of the drug prices paid by the NHS, which was a limitation that could not be avoided owing to the confidentiality of discounts given to the NHS. CONCLUSIONS The RCT evidence suggests that cabozantinib is likely to be the most effective for PFS and OS, closely followed by nivolumab. All treatments appear to delay disease progression and prolong survival compared with BSC, although the results are heterogeneous. The economic analysis shows that at list price everolimus could be recommended as the other drugs are much more expensive with insufficient incremental benefit. The applicability of these findings to the NHS is somewhat limited because existing confidential patient access schemes could not be used in the analysis. Future work using the discounted prices at which these drugs are provided to the NHS would better inform estimates of their relative cost-effectiveness. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042384. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Heightened risk of false positives in a network meta-analysis of social anxiety-Author's reply

www.thelancet.com/psychiatry Vol 2 April 2015 293 positives. The present network metaanalysis does not adequately address these methodological hazards, impairing its ability to detect only true treatment diff erences. In the context of network metaanalysis, transitivity is the crucial assumption that studies share similar clinical and design characteristics relevant to estimating an eff ect size. Transitivity permits the use of indirect evidence—that is, it permits the comparison of treatments that have never been directly contrasted. Without transitivity, any indirect evidence might be misestimated, since diff erent treatments might have been tested in diff erent contexts, such as varying degrees of disease severity. Cipriani and colleagues provide an example of violation of transitivity with the treatments A, B, and C: “Suppose that all AC studies include patients with severe illness and all BC studies include patients with moderate illness. Each study set is similar within itself... but the two sets deal with clinically different populations of patients. So, if severity is an effect modifi er, the transitivity assumption would not hold, and synthesis of these two meta-analyses would not give a valid AB estimate.” To summarise, indirect AB comparisons will be inaccurate because treatment A tends to be tested among more intractable patients than does B. In this network meta-analysis, transitivity per se is left unmentioned, and no moderator analyses were done. As study-characteristic heterogeneity is the norm in psychiatric trials, transitivity cannot be assumed. These omissions are therefore problematic. Moreover, some treatments contributed few studies. Treatments contributing fewer studies might not portray a representative range of treatment contexts, biasing an eff ect estimate compared with those with more studies. Unsurprisingly, the authors detect significant effect heterogeneity. Furthermore, at least nine of 44 comparisons with both direct and indirect evidence were potentially inconsistent, meaning that direct evidence was in signifi cant disagreement with indirect evidence. In such a case, treatment A could be equivalent in direct comparison with treatment B, while indirect evidence about treatment B used in other trials estimates that treatment B is better than treatment A. It would have been judicious to highlight the disputed comparisons indicated by inconsistency. Importantly, both inconsistency and heterogeneity can imply violation of transitivity. Simulations suggest that the risk of false positives is high in network metaanalysis because of the sheer number of comparisons made. In a simulation comparing only 12 antidepressants, an average of 2·7 false positives were recorded. That 38 active treatments and three controls were compared in this network meta-analysis is concerning. Type-I error correction (eg, Bonferroni) would have been appropriate to use. It is unfortunate that these signifi cant limitations are largely unaddressed, since they set the stage for the detection of false superiorities between treatments. Until these concerns are resolved, it is inappropriate to make stark treatment recommendations based on indirect evidence provided by this network meta-analysis.