Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Brain Behav Immun. 2018 Nov;74:68-78. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2018.04.005. Epub 2018 Apr 7.

Effects of psychological interventions on systemic levels of inflammatory biomarkers in humans: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

1
Unit for Psychooncology and Health Psychology, Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus University, Denmark. Electronic address: mia@psy.au.dk.
2
Biobehavioral Oncology Program, Hillman Cancer Center; Departments of: Psychiatry, Psychology, Behavioral & Community Health Sciences, and Health & Community Systems, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
3
Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, USA.
4
Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden; Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, Sweden.
5
Unit for Psychooncology and Health Psychology, Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus University, Denmark.

Abstract

The purpose of the present investigation was to systematically review randomized controlled trials examining the effects of psychological interventions on inflammatory biomarkers in adult populations and to quantitatively analyze those effects by meta-analysis. Two researchers independently searched key electronic databases, selected eligible publications, extracted data, and evaluated methodological quality. Nineteen randomized controlled trials examining a total of 1510 participants were included. The overall combined effect size from pre to post psychological intervention on pro-inflammatory biomarker levels was statistically significant, showing an attenuating effect, although of a small magnitude (s' g = 0.15, p = .008, CI [0.04-0.26]). However, this effect was not maintained into the follow-up period (g < -0.01, p = .964, CI [-0.19-0.18]). Looking at the individual biomarkers assessed across studies, only C-reactive protein (CRP) was found to significantly decrease following psychological intervention. A number of moderation analyses were conducted, none of which reached statistical significance. However, the numerically largest - and significant - within-group effect size was obtained for the group of studies that had preselected participants based on elevated psychological distress (g = 0.29, p = .047). In conclusion, psychological interventions appear efficacious in reducing pro-inflammatory biomarker levels. Future studies are recommended to carefully select individuals based on inflammatory (e.g., the presence of low-grade inflammation) and/or psychological (e.g., psychological distress) criteria.

KEYWORDS:

CRP; Cancer; Cytokines; Depression; Inflammation; Psychotherapy

PMID:
29630988
DOI:
10.1016/j.bbi.2018.04.005

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center