Browsing by Author "Peschken, Christine A."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Interventions for Depression and Anxiety in Persons With Rheumatoid Arthritis
    (LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 2017) Fiest, Kirsten M.; Hitchon, Carol A.; Bernstein, Charles N.; Peschken, Christine A.; Walker, John R.; Graff, Lesley A.; Zarychanski, Ryan; Abou-Setta, Ahmed; Patten, Scott B.; Sareen, Jitender; Bolton, James; Marrie, Ruth Ann
    Background Psychiatric comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety, are very common in persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can lead to adverse outcomes. By appropriately treating these comorbidities, disease-specific outcomes and quality of life may be improved. Objective The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature from controlled trials of treatments for depression and anxiety in persons with RA. Methods We searched multiple online databases from inception until March 25, 2015, without restrictions on language, date, or location of publication. We included controlled trials conducted in persons with RA and depression or anxiety. Two independent reviewers extracted information including trial and participant characteristics. The standardized mean differences (SMDs) of depression or anxiety scores at postassessment were pooled between treatment and comparison groups, stratified by active versus inactive comparators. Results From 1291 unique abstracts, we included 8 RA trials of depression interventions (6 pharmacological, 1 psychological, 1 both). Pharmacological interventions for depression with inactive comparators (n = 3 trials, 143 participants) did not reduce depressive symptoms (SMD, -0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.27 to 0.85), although interventions with active comparators (n = 3 trials, 190 participants) did improve depressive symptoms (SMD, -0.79; 95% CI, -1.34 to -0.25). The single psychological trial of depression treatment in RA did not improve depressive symptoms (SMD, -0.44; 95% CI, -0.96 to 0.08). Seven of the trials had an unclear risk of bias. Conclusions Few trials examining interventions for depression or anxiety in adults with RA exist, and the level of evidence is low to moderate because of the risk of bias and small number of trials.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Systematic review of interventions for depression and anxiety in persons with inflammatory bowel disease
    (BMC, 2016) Fiest, Kirsten M.; Bernstein, Charles N.; Walker, John R.; Graff, Lesley A.; Hitchon, Carol A.; Peschken, Christine A.; Zarychanski, Ryan; Abou-Setta, Ahmed; Patten, Scott B.; Sareen, Jitender; Bolton, James; Singer, Alexander; Marrie, Ruth Ann
    Background Depression and anxiety are common in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and can affect disease outcomes, including quality of life and success of disease treatment. Successful management of psychiatric comorbidities may improve outcomes, though the effectiveness of existing treatments in IBD is unknown. Methods We searched multiple online databases from inception until March 25, 2015, without restrictions on language, date, or location of publication. We included controlled clinical trials conducted in persons with IBD and depression or anxiety. Two independent reviewers reviewed all abstracts and full-text articles and extracted information including trial and participant characteristics. We also assessed the risk of bias. Results Of 768 unique abstracts, we included one trial of pharmacological anxiety treatment in IBD (48 participants), which found an improvement in anxiety symptoms (p < 0.001). There was a high risk of bias in this trial. We found no controlled clinical trials on the treatment of depression in persons with IBD and depression and no controlled clinical trials reporting on psychological interventions for anxiety or depression in IBD. Conclusions Only one trial examined an intervention for anxiety in adults with IBD and no trials studied depression in adults with IBD. The level of evidence is low because of the risk of bias and limited evidence.