JAMA Psychiatry最新文献

Importance: Neurofeedback has been proposed for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) but the efficacy of this intervention remains unclear.

Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using probably blinded (ie, rated by individuals probably or certainly unaware of treatment allocation) or neuropsychological outcomes to test the efficacy of neurofeedback as a treatment for ADHD in terms of core symptom reduction and improved neuropsychological outcomes.

Data sources: PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid (PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Embase + Embase Classic), and Web of Science, as well as the reference lists of eligible records and relevant systematic reviews, were searched until July 25, 2023, with no language limits.

Study selection: Parallel-arm RCTs investigating neurofeedback in participants of any age with a clinical ADHD or hyperkinetic syndrome diagnosis were included.

Data extraction and synthesis: Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with Hedges g correction were pooled in random effects meta-analyses for all eligible outcomes.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was ADHD total symptom severity assessed at the first postintervention time point, focusing on reports by individuals judged probably or certainly unaware of treatment allocation (probably blinded). Secondary outcomes were inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms and neuropsychological outcomes postintervention and at a longer-term follow-up (ie, after the last follow-up time point). RCTs were assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2.0.

Results: A total of 38 RCTs (2472 participants aged 5 to 40 years) were included. Probably blinded reports of ADHD total symptoms showed no significant improvement with neurofeedback (k = 20; n = 1214; SMD, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.18). A small significant improvement was seen when analyses were restricted to RCTs using established standard protocols (k = 9; n = 681; SMD, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.40). Results remained similar with adults excluded or when analyses were restricted to RCTs where cortical learning or self-regulation was established. Of the 5 neuropsychological outcomes analyzed, a significant but small improvement was observed only for processing speed (k = 15; n = 909; SMD, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.69). Heterogeneity was generally low to moderate.

Conclusions and relevance: Overall, neurofeedback did not appear to meaningfully benefit individuals with ADHD, clinically or neuropsychologically, at the group level. Future studies seeking to identify individuals with ADHD who may benefit from neurofeedback could focus on using standard neurofeedback protocols, measuring processing speed, and leveraging advances in precision medicine, including neuroimaging technology.

Importance: Reliance on abstinence-based treatment success rules may fail to capture the full continuum of treatment response to buprenorphine plus medical counseling (BUP+MC) for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Objective: To describe patterns of reduction in illicit opioid use of patients both labeled as a success and nonsuccess based on an abstinent-based treatment outcome rule.

Design, setting, and participants: This study is a secondary data analysis of 4 harmonized randomized clinical trials on BUP+MC for OUD from multiple sites that included 869 patients with OUD. These data were analyzed on April 23, 2024. By week 12, 643 participants of the sample original remained (74%).

Intervention: All studies included patients randomized to BUP+MC or BUP plus enhanced MC (eg, delivered with adjunctive cognitive behavioral therapy).

Main outcomes and measures: Weekly self-reported days of illicit opioid use through 12 weeks of treatment. Abstinence was confirmed by urine drug screen.

Results: This study included 869 adults with OUD aged 18 to 69 (mean, 34.2 [SD, 10.45]) years; 287 patients were female (33%), 52 identified as Black (6%), 70 identified Hispanic (8%), 713 identified as White (82%), and 34 identified as other racial groups (4%). Only 377 patients (43%) would have been labeled a success using an abstinence-based success rule. However, the total sample reported a decrease from a mean baseline rate of illicit opioid use nearly every day (6.21 [SD, 1.50] days per week) to a mean of less than 1 day per week at week 12 (0.54 [SD, 1.28]). Importantly, even those who were labeled as nonsuccessful reported a substantial reduction in opioid use from a mean of 6.29 (SD, 1.42) days per week to 1.51 (SD, 1.76) days per week.

Conclusion and relevance: In this study, about half of patients receiving BUP+MC achieved near complete abstinence; however, many more experienced a partial treatment response characterized by a substantial reduction in illicit opioid use that falls short of abstinence. Future studies are needed to characterize how these reductions are associated with functional and long-term outcomes. Dissemination of BUP+MC as part of standard buprenorphine prescribing practices is an essential next step given the robust average response of this intervention.

Importance: Pediatric posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common and debilitating mental disorder, yet a comprehensive network meta-analysis examining psychological interventions is lacking.

Objective: To synthesize all available evidence on psychological interventions for pediatric PTSD in a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PTSDpubs were searched from inception to January 2, 2024, and 74 related systematic reviews were screened.

Study selection: Two independent raters screened publications for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trial (RCT) with at least 10 patients per arm examining a psychological intervention for pediatric PTSD compared to a control group in children and adolescents (19 years and younger) with full or subthreshold PTSD.

Data extraction and synthesis: PRISMA guidelines were followed to synthesize and present evidence. Two independent raters extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Cochrane criteria. Random-effects network meta-analyses were run.

Main outcome and measures: Standardized mean differences (Hedges g) in PTSD severity.

Results: In total, 70 RCTs (N = 5528 patients) were included. Most RCTs (n = 52 [74%]) examined trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapies (TF-CBTs). At treatment end point, TF-CBTs (g, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.86-1.26; P < .001), eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR; g, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.54-1.18; P < .001), multidisciplinary treatments (MDTs) (g, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.53-1.23; P < .001), and non-trauma-focused interventions (g, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.62-1.28; P < .001) were all associated with significantly larger reductions in pediatric PTSD than passive control conditions. TF-CBTs were associated with the largest short-term reductions in pediatric PTSD relative to both passive and active control conditions and across all sensitivity analyses. In a sensitivity analysis including only trials with parent involvement, TF-CBTs were associated with significantly larger reductions in pediatric PTSD than non-trauma-focused interventions (g, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.04-0.66; P = .03). Results for midterm (up to 5 months posttreatment) and long-term data (6-24 months posttreatment) were similar.

Conclusions and relevance: Results from this systematic review and network meta-analysis indicate that TF-CBTs were associated with significant reductions in pediatric PTSD in the short, mid, and long term. More long-term data are needed for EMDR, MDTs, and non-trauma-focused interventions. Results of TF-CBTs are encouraging, and disseminating these results may help reduce common treatment barriers by counteracting common misconceptions, such as the notion that TF-CBTs are harmful rather than helpful.