Psychological treatment of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis

Abstract: Background Although most depressive disorders are treated in primary care and several studies have examined the effects of psychological treatment in primary care, hardly any meta-analytic research has been conducted in which the results of these studies are integrated. Aim To integrate the results of randomised controlled trials of psychological treatment of depression in adults in primary care, and to compare these results to psychological treatments in other settings. Design of study A meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of psychological treatments of adult depression in primary care. Setting Primary care. Method An existing database of studies on psychological treatments of adult depression that was built on systematic searches in PubMed, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and Dissertation Abstracts International was used. Randomised trials were included in which the effects of psychological treatments on adult primary care patients with depression were compared to a control condition. Results In the 15 included studies, the standardised mean effect size of psychological treatment versus control groups was 0.31 (95% CI = 0.17 to 0.45), which corresponds with a numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 5.75. Studies in which patients were referred by their GP for treatment had significantly higher effect sizes (d = 0.43; NNT = 4.20) than studies in which patients were recruited through systematic screening (d = 0.13, not significantly different from zero; NNT = 13.51). Conclusions Although the number of studies was relatively low and the quality varied, psychological treatment of depression was found to be effective in primary care, especially when GPs refer patients with depression for treatment

Self-help to prevent relapse in depression

No description supplie

European COMPARative Effectiveness research on blended Depression treatment versus treatment-as-usual (E-COMPARED): study protocol for a randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight European countries.

BACKGROUND: Effective, accessible, and affordable depression treatment is of high importance considering the large personal and economic burden of depression. Internet-based treatment is considered a promising clinical and cost-effective alternative to current routine depression treatment strategies such as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, it is not clear whether research findings translate to routine clinical practice such as primary or specialized mental health care. The E-COMPARED project aims to gain knowledge on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment compared to treatment-as-usual in routine care. METHODS/DESIGN: E-COMPARED will employ a pragmatic, multinational, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight European countries. Adults diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) will be recruited in primary care (Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) or specialized mental health care (France, The Netherlands, and Switzerland). Regular care for depression is compared to "blended" service delivery combining mobile and Internet technologies with face-to-face treatment in one treatment protocol. Participants will be followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline to determine clinical improvements in symptoms of depression (primary outcome: Patient Health Questionnaire-9), remission of depression, and cost-effectiveness. Main analyses will be conducted on the pooled data from the eight countries (n = 1200 in total, 150 participants in each country). DISCUSSION: The E-COMPARED project will provide mental health care stakeholders with evidence-based information and recommendations on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: France: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02542891 . Registered on 4 September 2015; Germany: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006866 . Registered on 2 December 2014; The Netherlands: Netherlands Trials Register NTR4962 . Registered on 5 January 2015; Poland: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02389660 . Registered on 18 February 2015; Spain: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02361684 . Registered on 8 January 2015; Sweden: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02449447 . Registered on 30 March 2015; Switzerland: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02410616 . Registered on 2 April 2015; United Kingdom: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12388725 . Registered on 20 March 2015

Cost-effectiveness of nurse-led self-help for recurrent depression in the primary care setting: design of a pragmatic randomized trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Major Depressive Disorder is a leading cause of disability, tends to run a recurrent course and is associated with substantial economic costs due to increased healthcare utilization and productivity losses. Interventions aimed at the prevention of recurrences may reduce patients' suffering and costs. Besides antidepressants, several psychological treatments such as preventive cognitive therapy (PCT) are effective in the prevention of recurrences of depression. Yet, many patients find long-term use of antidepressants unattractive, do not want to engage in therapy sessions and in the primary care setting psychologists are often not available. Therefore, it is important to study whether PCT can be used in a nurse-led self-help format in primary care. This study sets out to test the hypothesis that usual care plus nurse-led self-help for recurrent depression in primary care is feasible, acceptable and cost-effective compared to usual care only.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>Patients are randomly assigned to ‘nurse-led self-help treatment plus usual care’ (134 participants) or ‘usual care’ (134 participants). Randomisation is stratified according to the number of previous episodes (2 or 3 previous episodes versus 4 or more). The primary clinical outcome is the cumulative recurrence rate of depression meeting DSM-IV criteria as assessed by the Structured-Clinical-Interview-for-DSM-IV- disorders at one year after completion of the intervention. Secondary clinical outcomes are quality of life, severity of depressive symptoms, co-morbid psychopathology and self-efficacy. As putative effect-moderators, demographic characteristics, number of previous episodes, type of treatment during previous episodes, age of onset, self-efficacy and symptoms of pain and fatigue are assessed. Cumulative recurrence rate ratios are obtained under a Poisson regression model. Number-needed-to-be-treated is calculated as the inverse of the risk-difference. The economic evaluation is conducted from a societal perspective, both as a cost-effectiveness analysis (costs per depression free survival year) and as a cost-utility analysis (costs per quality adjusted life-year).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The purpose of this paper is to outline the rationale and design of a nurse-led, cognitive therapy based self-help aimed at preventing recurrence of depression in a primary care setting. Only few studies have focused on psychological self-help interventions aimed at the prevention of recurrences in primary care patients.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NTR3001 (<url>http://www.trialregister.nl</url>)</p

Non-fatal disease burden for subtypes of depressive disorder: population-based epidemiological study

Background: Major depression is the leading cause of non-fatal disease burden. Because major depression is not a homogeneous condition, this study estimated the non-fatal disease burden for mild, moderate and severe depression in both single episode and recurrent depression. All estimates were assessed from an individual and a population perspective and presented as unadjusted, raw estimates and as estimates adjusted for comorbidity. Methods: We used data from the first wave of the second Netherlands-Mental-Health-Survey-and-Incidence-Study (NEMESIS-2, n = 6646; single episode Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-IV depression, n = 115; recurrent depression, n = 246). Disease burden from an individual perspective was assessed as 'disability weight * time spent in depression' for each person in the dataset. From a population perspective it was assessed as 'disability weight * time spent in depression *number of people affected'. The presence of mental disorders was assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) 3.0. Results: Single depressive episodes emerged as a key driver of disease burden from an individual perspective. From a population perspective, recurrent depressions emerged as a key driver. These findings remained unaltered after adjusting for comorbidity. Conclusions: The burden of disease differs between the subtype of depression and depends much on the choice of perspective. The distinction between an individual and a population perspective may help to avoid misunderstandings between policy makers and clinicians. © 2016 Biesheuvel-Leliefeld et al

A European Spectrum of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers: Implications for Clinical Pharmacogenomics

Pharmacogenomics aims to correlate inter-individual differences of drug efficacy and/or toxicity with the underlying genetic composition, particularly in genes encoding for protein factors and enzymes involved in drug metabolism and transport. In several European populations, particularly in countries with lower income, information related to the prevalence of pharmacogenomic biomarkers is incomplete or lacking. Here, we have implemented the microattribution approach to assess the pharmacogenomic biomarkers allelic spectrum in 18 European populations, mostly from developing European countries, by analyzing 1,931 pharmacogenomics biomarkers in 231 genes. Our data show significant interpopulation pharmacogenomic biomarker allele frequency differences, particularly in 7 clinically actionable pharmacogenomic biomarkers in 7 European populations, affecting drug efficacy and/ or toxicity of 51 medication treatment modalities. These data also reflect on the differences observed in the prevalence of high-risk genotypes in these populations, as far as common markers in the CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP3A5, VKORC1, SLCO1B1 and TPMT pharmacogenes are concerned. Also, our data demonstrate notable differences in predicted genotype-based warfarin dosing among these populations. Our findings can be exploited not only to develop guidelines for medical prioritization, but most importantly to facilitate integration of pharmacogenomics and to support pre-emptive pharmacogenomic testing. This may subsequently contribute towards significant cost-savings in the overall healthcare expenditure in the participating countries, where pharmacogenomics implementation proves to be cost-effective

The effects of using the PReDicT Test to guide the antidepressant treatment of depressed patients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Antidepressant medication is commonly used to treat depression. However, many patients do not respond to the first medication prescribed and improvements in symptoms are generally only detectable by clinicians 4–6 weeks after the medication has been initiated. As a result, there is often a long delay between the decision to initiate an antidepressant medication and the identification of an effective treatment regimen. Previous work has demonstrated that antidepressant medications alter subtle measures of affective cognition in depressed patients, such as the appraisal of facial expression. Furthermore, these cognitive effects of antidepressants are apparent early in the course of treatment and can also predict later clinical response. This trial will assess whether an electronic test of affective cognition and symptoms (the Predicting Response to Depression Treatment Test; PReDicT Test) can be used to guide antidepressant treatment in depressed patients and, therefore, hasten treatment response compared to a control group of patients treated as usual. Methods/design The study is a randomised, two-arm, multi-centre, open-label, clinical investigation of a medical device, the PReDicT Test. It will be conducted in five European countries (UK, France, Spain, Germany and the Netherlands) in depressed patients who are commencing antidepressant medication. Patients will be randomised to treatment guided by the PReDicT Test (PReDicT arm) or to Treatment as Usual (TaU arm). Patients in the TaU arm will be treated as per current standard guidelines in their particular country. Patients in the PReDicT arm will complete the PReDicT Test after 1 (and if necessary, 2) weeks of treatment. If the test indicates non-response to the treatment, physicians will be advised to immediately alter the patient’s antidepressant therapy by dose escalation or switching to another compound. The primary outcome of the study is the proportion of patients showing a clinical response (defined as 50% or greater decrease in baseline scores of depression measured using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms – Self-Rated questionnaire) at week 8. Health economic and acceptability data will also be collected and analysed. Discussion This trial will test the clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of using the novel PReDicT Test to guide antidepressant treatment selection in depressed patients