Reliability of the retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule Revised (rCIS-R) to assess relapse in depression in primary care patients

OBJECTIVES: We are not aware of a simple and short structured measure that retrospectively assesses time to relapse for depression. We developed the retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule Revised (rCIS-R) to assess depression relapse in the previous 12 weeks, for use in a clinical trial of maintenance antidepressant treatment. We assessed test-retest reliability and construct validity in relation to a Global Rating Question (GRQ) about worsening mood, participants stopping their study medication and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores. METHODS: In our study 444 participants provided data for rCIS-R, GRQ and PHQ-9 and 396 participants completed rCIS-R on two occasions about 30 minutes apart. The reliability study was nested within a randomised controlled trial (ANTLER). RESULTS: We found substantial test-retest agreement for the rCIS-R definition of relapse (kappa 0.84 (95%CI 0.71 to 0.97)), for individual sections and timing of relapse (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0.94 (95%CI 0.92 to 0.95)). Comparison of relapse with GRQ, stopping study medication and PHQ-9 supported the construct validity of the rCIS-R. CONCLUSIONS: The rCIS-R provides a reliable way of assessing relapse of depression over the previous 12 weeks. Its brevity, self-report format, simplicity of scoring and absence of training requirement makes it attractive to use in randomised controlled trials

Clinical factors associated with relapse in depression in a sample of UK primary care patients who have been on long-term antidepressant treatment

BACKGROUND: This paper investigates whether age of onset of depression, duration of the last episode, number of episodes, and residual symptoms of depression and anxiety are associated with depression relapse in primary care patients who have been on long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment and no longer meet ICD10 criteria for depression. METHODS: An observational cohort using data from ANTLER (N = 478), a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was time to relapse using the retrospective CIS-R. Participants were followed for 12 months. RESULTS: Primary outcome was available for 468 participants. Time to relapse in those with more than five previous episodes of depression was shorter, hazard ratio (HR) 1.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-2.75) compared to people with two episodes; HR 1.57 (95% CI 1.01-2.43) after adjustment. The residual symptoms of depression at baseline were also associated with increased relapse: HR 1.05 (95% CI 1.01-1.09) and HR 1.06 (95% CI 1.01-1.12) in the adjusted model. There was evidence of reduced rate of relapse in older age of onset group: HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.78-0.95); HR attenuated after adjustment HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.81-1.02). There was no evidence of an association between duration of the current episode and residual anxiety symptoms with relapse. CONCLUSIONS: The number of previous episodes and residual symptoms of depression were associated with increased likelihood of relapse. These factors could inform joint decision making when patients are considering tapering off maintenance antidepressant treatment or considering other treatments to prevent relapse

Neuropsychological markers of antidepressant action: a secondary analysis of the ANTLER randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants have been proposed to act via their influence on emotional processing. We investigated the effect of discontinuing maintenance antidepressant treatment on positive and negative self-referential recall and the association between self-referential recall and risk of relapse. METHODS: The ANTLER trial was a large (N = 478) pragmatic double-blind trial investigating the clinical effectiveness of long-term antidepressant treatment for preventing relapse in primary care patients. Participants were randomised to continue their maintenance antidepressants or discontinue via a taper to placebo. We analysed memory for positive and negative personality descriptors, assessed at baseline, 12- and 52-week follow-up. RESULTS: The recall task was completed by 437 participants. There was no evidence of an effect of discontinuation on self-referential recall at 12 [positive recall ratio 1.00, 95% CI (0.90-1.11), p = 0.93; negative recall ratio 1.00 (0.87-1.14), p = 0.87] or 52 weeks [positive recall ratio 1.03 (0.91-1.17), p = 0.62; negative recall ratio 1.00 (0.86-1.15), p = 0.96; ratios larger than one indicate higher recall in the discontinuation group], and no evidence of an association between recall at baseline or 12 weeks and later relapse [baseline, positive hazard ratio (HR) 1.02 (0.93-1.12), p = 0.74; negative HR 1.01 (0.90-1.13), p = 0.87; 12 weeks, positive HR 0.99 (0.89-1.09), p = 0.81; negative HR 0.98 (0.84-1.14), p = 0.78; ratios larger than one indicate a higher frequency of relapse in those with higher recall]. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that discontinuing long-term antidepressants altered self-referential recall or that self-referential recall was associated with risk of relapse. These findings suggest that self-referential recall is not a neuropsychological marker of antidepressant action

How much change is enough?:Evidence from a longitudinal study on depression in UK primary care

BACKGROUND: The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) are widely used in the evaluation of interventions for depression and anxiety. The smallest reduction in depressive symptoms that matter to patients is known as the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID). Little empirical study of the MCID for these scales exists. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 400 patients in UK primary care were interviewed on four occasions, 2 weeks apart. At each time point, participants completed all three questionnaires and a ‘global rating of change’ scale (GRS). MCID estimation relied on estimated changes in symptoms according to reported improvement on the GRS scale, stratified by baseline severity on the Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R). RESULTS: For moderate baseline severity, those who reported improvement on the GRS had a reduction of 21% (95% confidence interval (CI) −26.7 to −14.9) on the PHQ-9; 23% (95% CI −27.8 to −18.0) on the BDI-II and 26.8% (95% CI −33.5 to −20.1) on the GAD-7. The corresponding threshold scores below which participants were more likely to report improvement were −1.7, −3.5 and −1.5 points on the PHQ-9, BDI-II and GAD-7, respectively. Patients with milder symptoms require much larger reductions as percentage of their baseline to endorse improvement. CONCLUSIONS: An MCID representing 20% reduction of scores in these scales, is a useful guide for patients with moderately severe symptoms. If treatment had the same effect on patients irrespective of baseline severity, those with low symptoms are unlikely to notice a benefit. FUNDING: Funding. National Institute for Health Research

Variation in recognition of happy and sad facial expressions and self-reported depressive symptom severity:A prospective cohort study

Objective: Cognitive theories suggest people with depression interpret self-referential social information negatively. However, it is unclear whether these biases precede or follow depression. We investigated whether facial expression recognition was associated with depressive symptoms cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Methods: Prospective cohort study of people who had visited UK primary care in the past year reporting depressive symptoms (n = 509). Depressive symptoms were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) at four time-points, 2 weeks apart. A computerised task assessed happy and sad facial expression recognition at three time-points (n = 505 at time 1). The unbiased hit rate measured ability to recognise emotions accounting for any general tendency to identify the emotion when it was not present. Results: The sample included the full range of depressive symptom severity, with 45% meeting diagnostic criteria for depression. There was no evidence that happy or sad unbiased hit rates were associated with concurrent or subsequent depressive symptoms. There was weak evidence that, for every additional face incorrectly classified as happy, concurrent PHQ-9 scores reduced by 0.05 of a point (95% CI = -0.10 to 0.002, p = 0.06 after adjustment for confounders). This association was strongest for more ambiguous facial expressions (interaction term p<0.001). Limitations: This was an observational study with relatively short follow-up (6 weeks) and small changes in depressive symptoms and emotion recognition. Only 7% of invited patients consented to participate. Conclusions: Reduced misclassifications of ambiguous faces as happy could be a state marker of depression, but was not associated with subsequent depressive symptoms. Future research should focus on the interpretation of ambiguous social informatio

Antidepressant treatment with sertraline for adults with depressive symptoms in primary care : the PANDA research programme including RCT

Background Despite a growing number of prescriptions for antidepressants (over 70 million in 2018), there is uncertainty about when people with depression might benefit from antidepressant medication and concern that antidepressants are prescribed unnecessarily. Objectives The main objective of the PANDA (What are the indications for Prescribing ANtiDepressAnts that will lead to a clinical benefit?) research programme was to provide more guidance about when antidepressants are likely to benefit people with depression. We aimed to estimate the minimal clinically important difference for commonly used self-administered scales for depression and anxiety, and to understand more about how patients respond to such assessments. We carried out an observational study of patients with depressive symptoms and a placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial of sertraline versus placebo to estimate the treatment effect in UK primary care. The hypothesis was that the severity and duration of symptoms were related to treatment response. Design The programme consisted of three phases. The first phase relied on the secondary analysis of existing data extracted from published trials. The second phase was the PANDA cohort study of patients with depressive symptoms who presented to primary care and were followed up 2, 4 and 6 weeks after a baseline assessment. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the analysis. The third phase was a multicentre randomised placebo-controlled double-blind trial of sertraline versus placebo in patients presenting to primary care with depressive symptoms. Setting UK primary care in Bristol, London, Liverpool and York. Participants Patients aged 18–74 years who were experiencing depressive symptoms in primary care. Eligibility for the PANDA randomised controlled trial included that there was uncertainty about the benefits about treatment with an antidepressant. Interventions In the PANDA randomised controlled trial, patients were individually randomised to 100 mg daily of sertraline or an identical placebo. The PANDA cohort study was an observational study. Main outcome measures Depressive symptoms measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire were the primary outcome for the randomised controlled trial. Other outcomes included anxiety symptoms using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; depressive symptoms using the Beck Depression Inventory, version 2; health-related quality of life; self-reported improvement; and cost-effectiveness. Results The secondary analysis of existing randomised controlled trials [GENetic and clinical Predictors Of treatment response in Depression (GenPod), TREAting Depression with physical activity (TREAD) and Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive Behavioural Therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression in primary care (CoBalT)] found evidence that the minimal clinically important difference increased as the initial severity of depressive symptoms rose. Our estimates of minimal clinically important difference were a 17% and 18% reduction in Beck Depression Inventory scores for GenPod and TREAD, respectively. In CoBalT, a 32% reduction corresponded to the minimal clinically important difference but the participants in this study had depression that had not responded to antidepressants. In the PANDA study cohort, and from our analyses in existing data, we found that the minimal clinically important difference varies considerably with the initial severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Expressing the minimal clinically important difference as a percentage reduction reduces this variation at higher scores, but at low scores the percentage reduction increased substantially. The results from the qualitative studies pointed out many limitations of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items in assessing change and recovery from depression. In the PANDA randomised controlled trial, there was no evidence that sertraline resulted in a reduction in depressive symptoms within 6 weeks of randomisation, but there was some evidence of a reduction by 12 weeks. However, sertraline led to a reduction in anxiety symptoms, an improvement of mental health-related quality of life and an increased likelihood of reporting improvement. The mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 6 weeks was 7.98 (standard deviation 5.63) in the sertraline group and 8.76 (standard deviation 5.86) in the placebo group (5% relative reduction, 95% confidence interval –7% to 15%; p = 0.41). Of the secondary outcomes, there was strong evidence that sertraline reduced anxiety symptoms (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 score reduced by 17% (95% confidence interval 9% to 25%; p = 0.00005). Sertraline had a high probability (> 90%) of being cost-effective at 12 weeks. The PANDA randomised controlled trial found no evidence that treatment response or cost-effectiveness was related to severity or duration of depressive symptoms. The minimal clinically important difference estimates suggested that sertraline’s effect on anxiety, but not on depression, was likely to be clinically important. Limitations The results from the randomised controlled trial and the estimates of minimal clinically important difference were not sufficiently precise to provide specific clinical guidance for individuals. We had low power in testing whether or not initial severity and duration of depressive symptoms are related to treatment response. Conclusions The results of the trial support the use of sertraline and probably other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors because of their action in reducing anxiety symptoms and the likelihood of longer-term benefit on depressive symptoms. Sertraline could be prescribed for anxiety symptoms that commonly occur with depression and many patients will experience a clinical benefit. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items and similar self-administered scales should not be used on their own to assess clinical outcome, but should be supplemented with further clinical assessment. Future work We need to examine the longer-term effects of antidepressant treatment. We need more precise estimates of the treatment effects and minimal clinically important difference at different severities to provide more specific guidance for individuals. However, the methods we have developed provide an approach towards providing such detailed guidance. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84544741 and EudraCT number 2013-003440-22. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

A randomised controlled trial assessing the use of citalopram, sertraline, fluoxetine and mirtazapine in preventing relapse in primary care patients who are taking long-term maintenance antidepressants (ANTLER : ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are used both for treating acute episodes and for prophylaxis to prevent future episodes of depression, also called maintenance treatment. This article describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ANTLER: ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession) to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in UK primary care of continuing on long-term maintenance antidepressants compared with a placebo in preventing relapse of depression in those who have taken antidepressants for more than 9 months and who are currently well enough to consider stopping maintenance treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: The ANTLER trial is an individually randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which participants are randomised to remain on active medication or to take an identical placebo after a tapering period of 2 months. Eligible participants are those who: are between the ages of 18 and 74 years; have had at least two episodes of depression; and have been taking antidepressants for 9 months or more and are currently taking citalopram 20 mg, sertraline 100 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg or mirtazapine 30 mg but are well enough to consider stopping their medication. The participants will be followed up at 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. The primary outcome will be the time in weeks to the beginning of the first episode of depression after randomisation. This will be measured using a retrospective version of the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised administered at 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include depressive and anxiety symptoms, adverse effects, withdrawal symptoms, emotional processing tasks, quality of life and the resources and costs used. We will also perform a cost-effectiveness analysis based on results of the trial. DISCUSSION: The ANTLER trial findings will inform primary care prescribing practice by providing a valid and generalisable estimate of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of long-term maintenance treatment with antidepressants in UK primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN15969819. Registered on 21 September 2015

Use of biological based therapy in patients with cardiovascular diseases in a university-hospital in New York City

BACKGROUND: The use of complementary and alternative products including Biological Based Therapy (BBT) has increased among patients with various medical illnesses and conditions. The studies assessing the prevalence of BBT use among patients with cardiovascular diseases are limited. Therefore, an evaluation of BBT in this patient population would be beneficial. This was a survey designed to determine the effects of demographics on the use of Biological Based Therapy (BBT) in patients with cardiovascular diseases. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of the education level on the use of BBT in cardiovascular patients. This survey also assessed the perceptions of users regarding the safety/efficacy of BBT, types of BBT used and potential BBT-drug interactions. METHOD: The survey instrument was designed to assess the findings. Patients were interviewed from February 2001 to December 2002. 198 inpatients with cardiovascular diseases (94 BBT users and 104 non-users) in a university hospital were included in the study. RESULTS: Users had a significantly higher level of education than non-users (college graduate: 28 [30%] versus 12 [12%], p = 0.003). Top 10 BBT products used were vitamin E [41(43.6%)], vitamin C [30(31.9%)], multivitamins [24(25.5%)], calcium [19(20.2%)], vitamin B complex [17(18.1%)], fish oil [12(12.8%)], coenzyme Q10 [11(11.7%)], glucosamine [10(10.6%)], magnesium [8(8.5%)] and vitamin D [6(6.4%)]. Sixty percent of users' physicians knew of the BBT use. Compared to non-users, users believed BBT to be safer (p < 0.001) and more effective (p < 0.001) than prescription drugs. Forty-two potential drug-BBT interactions were identified. CONCLUSION: Incidence of use of BBT in cardiovascular patients is high (47.5%), as is the risk of potential drug interaction. Health care providers need to monitor BBT use in patients with cardiovascular diseases

Clinical complexity and impact of the ABC (Atrial fibrillation Better Care) pathway in patients with atrial fibrillation: a report from the ESC-EHRA EURObservational Research Programme in AF General Long-Term Registry

Background: Clinical complexity is increasingly prevalent among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The ‘Atrial fibrillation Better Care’ (ABC) pathway approach has been proposed to streamline a more holistic and integrated approach to AF care; however, there are limited data on its usefulness among clinically complex patients. We aim to determine the impact of ABC pathway in a contemporary cohort of clinically complex AF patients. Methods: From the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry, we analysed clinically complex AF patients, defined as the presence of frailty, multimorbidity and/or polypharmacy. A K-medoids cluster analysis was performed to identify different groups of clinical complexity. The impact of an ABC-adherent approach on major outcomes was analysed through Cox-regression analyses and delay of event (DoE) analyses. Results: Among 9966 AF patients included, 8289 (83.1%) were clinically complex. Adherence to the ABC pathway in the clinically complex group reduced the risk of all-cause death (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.72, 95%CI 0.58–0.91), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; aHR: 0.68, 95%CI 0.52–0.87) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.58–0.85). Adherence to the ABC pathway was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (aHR: 0.74, 95%CI 0.56–0.98) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.76, 95%CI 0.60–0.96) also in the high-complexity cluster; similar trends were observed for MACEs. In DoE analyses, an ABC-adherent approach resulted in significant gains in event-free survival for all the outcomes investigated in clinically complex patients. Based on absolute risk reduction at 1 year of follow-up, the number needed to treat for ABC pathway adherence was 24 for all-cause death, 31 for MACEs and 20 for the composite outcome. Conclusions: An ABC-adherent approach reduces the risk of major outcomes in clinically complex AF patients. Ensuring adherence to the ABC pathway is essential to improve clinical outcomes among clinically complex AF patients

Impact of clinical phenotypes on management and outcomes in European atrial fibrillation patients: a report from the ESC-EHRA EURObservational Research Programme in AF (EORP-AF) General Long-Term Registry

Background: Epidemiological studies in atrial fibrillation (AF) illustrate that clinical complexity increase the risk of major adverse outcomes. We aimed to describe European AF patients\u2019 clinical phenotypes and analyse the differential clinical course. Methods: We performed a hierarchical cluster analysis based on Ward\u2019s Method and Squared Euclidean Distance using 22 clinical binary variables, identifying the optimal number of clusters. We investigated differences in clinical management, use of healthcare resources and outcomes in a cohort of European AF patients from a Europe-wide observational registry. Results: A total of 9363 were available for this analysis. We identified three clusters: Cluster 1 (n = 3634; 38.8%) characterized by older patients and prevalent non-cardiac comorbidities; Cluster 2 (n = 2774; 29.6%) characterized by younger patients with low prevalence of comorbidities; Cluster 3 (n = 2955;31.6%) characterized by patients\u2019 prevalent cardiovascular risk factors/comorbidities. Over a mean follow-up of 22.5 months, Cluster 3 had the highest rate of cardiovascular events, all-cause death, and the composite outcome (combining the previous two) compared to Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 (all P &lt;.001). An adjusted Cox regression showed that compared to Cluster 2, Cluster 3 (hazard ratio (HR) 2.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27\u20133.62; HR 3.42, 95%CI 2.72\u20134.31; HR 2.79, 95%CI 2.32\u20133.35), and Cluster 1 (HR 1.88, 95%CI 1.48\u20132.38; HR 2.50, 95%CI 1.98\u20133.15; HR 2.09, 95%CI 1.74\u20132.51) reported a higher risk for the three outcomes respectively. Conclusions: In European AF patients, three main clusters were identified, differentiated by differential presence of comorbidities. Both non-cardiac and cardiac comorbidities clusters were found to be associated with an increased risk of major adverse outcomes