Riggott Christy, Mikocka-Walus Antonina, Gracie David J, Ford Alexander C
Leeds Gastroenterology Institute, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK; Leeds Institute of Medical Research, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Oct;8(10):919-931. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(23)00186-3. Epub 2023 Aug 3.
There is increasing evidence for an influence of the gut-brain axis on the natural history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Psychological therapies could, therefore, have beneficial effects in individuals with IBD, but data are conflicting. We aimed to update our previous systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether the inclusion of more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed any beneficial effects and whether these effects varied by treatment modality.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from Jan 1, 2016, to April 30, 2023, for RCTs published in any language recruiting individuals aged 16 years or older with IBD that compared psychological therapy with a control intervention or treatment as usual. We pooled dichotomous data to obtain relative risks (RR) with 95% CIs of inducing remission in people with active disease or of relapse in people with quiescent disease at final follow-up. We pooled continuous data to estimate standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs in disease activity indices, anxiety scores, depression scores, stress scores, and quality-of-life scores at completion of therapy and at final follow-up. We pooled all data using a random-effects model. Trials were analysed separately according to whether they recruited people with clinically active IBD or predominantly individuals whose disease was quiescent. We conducted subgroup analyses by mode of therapy and according to whether trials recruited selected groups of people with IBD. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess bias at the study level and assessed funnel plots using the Egger test. We assessed heterogeneity using the I statistic.
The updated literature search identified a total of 469 new records, 11 of which met eligibility criteria. 14 studies were included from our previous meta-analysis published in 2017. In total, 25 RCTs were eligible for this meta-analysis, all of which were at high risk of bias. Only four RCTs recruited patients with active IBD; there were insufficient data for meta-analysis of remission, disease activity indices, depression scores, and stress scores. In patients with active IBD, psychological therapy had no benefit compared with control for anxiety scores at completion of therapy (two RCTs; 79 people; SMD -1·04, 95% CI -2·46 to 0·39), but did have significant benefit for quality-of-life scores at completion of therapy (four RCTs; 309 people; 0·68, 0·09 to 1·26), although heterogeneity between studies was high (I=82%). In individuals with quiescent IBD, RR of relapse of disease activity was not reduced with psychological therapy (ten RCTs; 861 people; RR 0·83, 95% CI 0·62 to 1·12), with moderate heterogeneity (I=60%), and the funnel plot suggested evidence of publication bias or other small study effects (Egger test p=0·046). For people with quiescent IBD at completion of therapy, there was no difference in disease activity indices between psychological therapy and control (13 RCTs; 1015 people; SMD -0·01, 95% CI -0·13 to 0·12; I=0%). Anxiety scores (13 RCTs; 1088 people; -0·23, -0·36 to -0·09; 18%), depression scores (15 RCTs; 1189 people; -0·26, -0·38 to -0·15; 2%), and stress scores (11 RCTs; 813 people; -0·22, -0·42 to -0·03; 47%) were significantly lower, and quality-of-life scores (16 RCTs; 1080 people; 0·31, 0·16 to 0·46; 30%) were significantly higher, with psychological therapy versus control at treatment completion. Statistically significant benefits persisted up to final follow-up for depression scores (12 RCTs; 856 people; -0·16, -0·30 to -0·03; 0%). Effects were strongest in RCTs of third-wave therapies and in RCTs that recruited people with impaired psychological health, fatigue, or reduced quality of life at baseline.
Psychological therapies have beneficial, short-term effects on anxiety, depression, stress, and quality-of-life scores, but not on disease activity. Further RCTs in selected groups are needed to establish the place for such therapies in IBD care.
None.
越来越多的证据表明肠-脑轴对炎症性肠病(IBD)的自然病程有影响。因此,心理治疗可能对IBD患者有益,但数据存在冲突。我们旨在更新之前的系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估纳入更多随机对照试验(RCT)是否显示出任何有益效果,以及这些效果是否因治疗方式而异。
在这项系统评价和荟萃分析中,我们检索了2016年1月1日至2023年4月30日期间的MEDLINE、Embase、Embase Classic、PsychINFO和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库,以查找以任何语言发表的招募16岁及以上IBD患者的RCT,这些试验将心理治疗与对照干预或常规治疗进行比较。我们汇总二分数据以获得相对风险(RR)及95%置信区间,用于评估在最终随访时活动性疾病患者诱导缓解或静止期疾病患者复发的情况。我们汇总连续数据以估计治疗完成时和最终随访时疾病活动指数、焦虑评分、抑郁评分、压力评分和生活质量评分的标准化平均差(SMD)及95%置信区间。我们使用随机效应模型汇总所有数据。根据试验招募的是临床活动性IBD患者还是主要是疾病静止的个体,分别对试验进行分析。我们根据治疗方式以及试验是否招募特定IBD患者群体进行亚组分析。我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估研究水平的偏倚,并使用Egger检验评估漏斗图。我们使用I统计量评估异质性。
更新的文献检索共识别出469条新记录,其中11条符合纳入标准。我们之前在2017年发表的荟萃分析纳入了14项研究。总共有25项RCT符合本荟萃分析的条件,所有这些研究均存在高偏倚风险。只有4项RCT招募了活动性IBD患者;关于缓解、疾病活动指数、抑郁评分和压力评分的荟萃分析数据不足。在活动性IBD患者中,与对照组相比,心理治疗在治疗完成时对焦虑评分无益处(2项RCT;79人;SMD -1.04,95%置信区间 -2.46至0.39),但在治疗完成时对生活质量评分有显著益处(4项RCT;3,09人;0.68,0.09至1.26),尽管研究间异质性较高(I = 82%)。在静止性IBD患者中,心理治疗并未降低疾病活动复发的RR(10项RCT;861人;RR 0.83,95%置信区间0.62至1.12),异质性中等(I = 60%),漏斗图提示存在发表偏倚或其他小研究效应的证据(Egger检验p = 0.046)。对于治疗完成时处于静止期IBD的患者,心理治疗与对照组在疾病活动指数方面无差异(13项RCT;1,015人;SMD -0.01,95%置信区间 -0.13至0.12;I = 0%)。治疗完成时,心理治疗组的焦虑评分(13项RCT;1,088人; -0.23, -0.36至 -0.09;18%)、抑郁评分(1项RCT;,189人; -0.26, -0.38至 -0.15;2%)和压力评分(11项RCT;813人; -0.22, -0.42至 -0.03;47%)显著更低,生活质量评分(16项RCT;1,080人;0.31,0.16至0.46;30%)显著更高。抑郁评分在最终随访时仍存在统计学显著益处(12项RCT;856人; -0.16, -0.30至 -0.03;0%)。在第三波疗法的RCT以及基线时招募心理健康受损、疲劳或生活质量降低患者的RCT中,效果最为显著。
心理治疗对焦虑、抑郁、压力和生活质量评分有有益的短期影响,但对疾病活动无影响。需要在特定群体中进一步开展RCT,以确定此类疗法在IBD治疗中的地位。
无。