Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Issues
    • Issue in progress
    • Issues by date
  • Sections
    • Editorial
    • Review
    • Research
    • Commentary
    • Psychopharmacology for the Clinician
    • Letters to the Editor
  • Topic Collections
  • Instructions for Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission checklist
    • Editorial policies
    • Publication fees
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Dr. Francis Wayne Quan Memorial Prize
    • Open access
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
JPN
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
JPN

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Issues
    • Issue in progress
    • Issues by date
  • Sections
    • Editorial
    • Review
    • Research
    • Commentary
    • Psychopharmacology for the Clinician
    • Letters to the Editor
  • Topic Collections
  • Instructions for Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission checklist
    • Editorial policies
    • Publication fees
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Dr. Francis Wayne Quan Memorial Prize
    • Open access
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • Subscribe to our alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow JPN on Twitter
Letters
Open Access

Response to: “Updated and rectified meta-analysis shows no effect of propranolol versus placebo on traumatic memory reconsolidation disruption”

Alain Brunet, Michelle Lonergan, Sereena Pigeon, Daniel Saumier, Scott Orr and Roger Pitman
J Psychiatry Neurosci September 21, 2022 47 (5) E338-E339; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.220093
Alain Brunet
From the Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Brunet); the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal, Que. (Brunet, Saumier); the School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont. (Lonergan); the Department of Educational & Counseling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Pigeon); the Department of Psychology, University of Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Que. (Saumier); the Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Mass. (Orr, Pitman)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michelle Lonergan
From the Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Brunet); the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal, Que. (Brunet, Saumier); the School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont. (Lonergan); the Department of Educational & Counseling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Pigeon); the Department of Psychology, University of Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Que. (Saumier); the Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Mass. (Orr, Pitman)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sereena Pigeon
From the Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Brunet); the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal, Que. (Brunet, Saumier); the School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont. (Lonergan); the Department of Educational & Counseling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Pigeon); the Department of Psychology, University of Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Que. (Saumier); the Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Mass. (Orr, Pitman)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Saumier
From the Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Brunet); the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal, Que. (Brunet, Saumier); the School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont. (Lonergan); the Department of Educational & Counseling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Pigeon); the Department of Psychology, University of Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Que. (Saumier); the Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Mass. (Orr, Pitman)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott Orr
From the Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Brunet); the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal, Que. (Brunet, Saumier); the School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont. (Lonergan); the Department of Educational & Counseling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Pigeon); the Department of Psychology, University of Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Que. (Saumier); the Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Mass. (Orr, Pitman)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Roger Pitman
From the Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Brunet); the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal, Que. (Brunet, Saumier); the School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont. (Lonergan); the Department of Educational & Counseling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Que. (Pigeon); the Department of Psychology, University of Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Que. (Saumier); the Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Mass. (Orr, Pitman)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

In their letter to the editor, Steenen and colleagues1 argue that the conclusions of our meta-analysis2 on the clinical efficacy of reconsolidation impairment using propranolol are “incorrect in the context of (...) psychotrauma-related symptomatology.” They claim that we did not assess risk of bias and critique our omission of 3 unpublished studies (Aikins,3 Saladin,4 and Orr5). We are not convinced by their attempt to rectify our analysis.

Although this is a matter of debate,6 we were asked during the JPN peer review of our manuscript to omit unpublished data from our meta-analysis because the methodological quality of such studies is difficult to verify. Indeed, we could not verify important methodological information with respect to the unpublished results (n = 6) of Aikins,3 such as the adequacy of blinding methods. Moreover, we verified methodological information in the study by Orr5 with the author himself and concluded that the data from this pre-emptively terminated (rather than unpublished) study with n = 5 randomized participants were not suitable for meta-analytic purposes. The inclusion of studies with very small samples in a meta-analysis (n ≤ 3 per group) is bound to compromise the precision of the overall effect estimate.6

We also could not verify important information such as the outcomes used to compute the effect size for Saladin’s unpublished study of reconsolidation interference in participants with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and comorbid alcohol dependence.4 Considering that Steenen and colleagues1 argue against including studies of addiction (but see Gisquet-Verrier and colleagues7), it is unclear why they included Saladin’s study in their analysis. But even more problematic, we found discrepancies across public forums in how Saladin reported the results of this unpublished study,4 casting reasonable doubts on the validity of the data used by Steenen and colleagues.1 We also could not replicate the large effect size estimate of d = −3.59 that Steenen and colleagues1 reported for the Saladin study,4 as it seems to have been erroneously computed using standard errors rather than standard deviations on a measure of subjective distress to trauma and alcohol cues (based on data available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT01055171?term=propranolol+and+alcohol&draw=2&rank=2&view=results). Scrutiny indicates that we were justified to not include such unpublished studies.

Steenen and colleagues1 re-analyzed our data by excluding a number of studies that they deemed had high risk of bias (retaining only 4), adding to these the 3 unpublished studies mentioned above. They also included 2 studies published after our paper was completed and accepted for publication (see Steenen and colleagues8 and Elsey and Kindt9). Exactly how they concluded that this set of studies had low risk of bias is not specified. Moreover, their computation of the effect size for Elsey and Kindt’s phobia study suggests a possible outcome selection bias.9 It appears that Steenen and colleagues1 computed an effect size of d = 0.45 using the Behavioural Avoidance Test (reporting n = 0 per group when it appears to have been n = 13 per group). However, Elsey and Kindt also measured phobia severity with a post-treatment self-report questionnaire.9 All available outcome data should be included in a meta-analysis to minimize bias;10 this does not seem to have been considered by Steenen and colleagues.1

We agree that it would have been appropriate to include these 2 studies in our meta-analysis had they been available. However, a re-analysis of our data with these studies included indicates that our finding remains (Figure 1). Although not mentioned by Steenen and colleagues,1 we noted in our original meta-analysis that study quality was assessed and did not significantly moderate the overall outcome effect.2

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Forest plot results: reconsolidation interference by disorder. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; Pbo = placebo; Ppnl = propranolol; SE = standard error; UL = upper limit.

Considering these important issues, Steenen and colleagues’1 results cannot and should not constitute evidence against our rigorous meta-analysis. Rather, we argue that our meta-analysis provides empirical support in favour of a reconsolidation-based treatment method involving narrative and pharmacological interventions that are more efficacious than simply giving “some tablets of propranolol.”

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original publication is properly cited, the use is noncommercial (i.e., research or educational use), and no modifications or adaptations are made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

References

    1. Steenen S,
    2. van Westrhenen R,
    3. de Lange J,
    4. et al
    . Updated and rectified meta-analysis shows no effect of propranolol versus placebo on traumatic memory reactivation disruption. J Psychiatry Neurosci 2022;47:E336–7.
    1. Pigeon S,
    2. Lonergan M,
    3. Rotondo O,
    4. et al
    . Impairing memory reconsolidation with propranolol in healthy and clinical samples: a meta-analysis. J Psychiatry Neurosci 2022;47:E109–22.
    1. Aikins D
    . Using propranolol to block memory reconsolidation in female veterans with PTSD. Fort Detrick (MD): Army Medical Research and Materiel Command; 2015. Available: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1005283.pdf (accessed 2022 June 1).
    1. Saladin ME
    . Treatment implications of trauma memory modulation for PTSD & alcohol dependence. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01055171; 2016. Available: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01055171 (accessed 2022 June 1).
    1. Orr SP
    . PTSD symptom reduction by propranolol given after memory activation. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00645450; 2019. Available: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00645450 (accessed 2022 June 1).
    1. Schmucker CM,
    2. Blümle A,
    3. Schell LK,
    4. et al
    .OPEN consortium. Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research. PLoS One 2017;12:e0176210.
    1. Gisquet-Verrier P,
    2. Le Dorze C
    . Post-traumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder as two pathologies affecting memory reactivation: Implications for new therapeutic approaches. Front Behav Neurosci 2019;13:26.
    1. Steenen SA,
    2. Su N,
    3. van Westrhenen R,
    4. et al
    . Perioperative propranolol against dental anxiety: a randomized controlled trial. Front Psychiatry 2022;13:842353.
    1. Elsey JW,
    2. Kindt M
    . Placebo and non-specific effects in reconsolidation-based treatment for arachnophobia. Front Psychiatry 2021;12: 775770.
    1. Kirkham JJ,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Chan AW,
    4. et al
    . Outcome reporting bias in trials: a methodological approach for assessment and adjustment in systematic reviews. BMJ 2018;362:k3802.
    1. Jobes ML,
    2. Aharonovich E,
    3. Epstein DH,
    4. et al
    . Effects of pre-reactivation propranolol on cocaine craving elicited by imagery script/cue sets in opioid-dependent polydrug users: a randomized study. J Addict Med 2015;9:491–8.
    1. Lonergan M,
    2. Saumier D,
    3. Tremblay J,
    4. et al
    . Reactivating addiction-related memories under propranolol to reduce craving: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 2016;50:245–9.
    1. Pachas GN,
    2. Gilman J,
    3. Orr SP,
    4. et al
    . Single dose propranolol does not affect physiologic or emotional reactivity to smoking cues. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2015;232:1619–28.
    1. Xue Y-X,
    2. Deng J-H,
    3. Chen Y-Y,
    4. et al
    . Effect of selective inhibition of reactivated nicotine-associated memories with propranolol on nicotine craving. JAMA Psychiatry 2017;74:224–32.
    1. Zhao LY,
    2. Sun LL,
    3. Shi J,
    4. et al
    . Effects of beta-adrenergic receptor blockade on drug-related memory reconsolidation in abstinent heroin addicts. Drug Alcohol Depend 2011;118:224–9.
    1. Brunet A,
    2. Orr SP,
    3. Tremblay J,
    4. et al
    . Effect of post-retrieval propranolol on psychophysiologic responding during subsequent script-driven traumatic imagery in post-traumatic stress disorder. J Psychiatr Res 2008;42:503–6.
    1. Brunet A,
    2. Thomas É,
    3. Saumier D,
    4. et al
    . Trauma reactivation plus propranolol is associated with durably low physiological responding during subsequent script-driven traumatic imagery. Can J Psychiatry 2014;59:228–32.
    1. Brunet A,
    2. Saumier D,
    3. Liu A,
    4. et al
    . Reduction of PTSD symptoms with pre-reactivation propranolol therapy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry 2018;175:427–33.
    1. Elsey JWB,
    2. Filmer AI,
    3. Galvin HR,
    4. et al
    . Reconsolidation-based treatment for fear of public speaking: a systematic pilot study using propranolol. Transl Psychiatry 2020;10:179.
    1. Roullet P,
    2. Vaiva G,
    3. Véry E,
    4. et al
    . Traumatic memory reactivation with or without propranolol for PTSD and comorbid MD symptoms: a randomised clinical trial. Neuropsychopharmacology 2021; 46:1643–9.
    1. Soeter M,
    2. Kindt M
    . An abrupt transformation of phobic behavior after a post-retrieval amnesic agent. Biol Psychiatry 2015;78:880–6.

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Authors & Reviewers

  • Overview for Authors
  • Submit a manuscript
  • Manuscript Submission Checklist

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibility
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1180-4882.

All editorial matter in JPN represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.
To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].
View CMA's Accessibility policy.

Powered by HighWire