Clinical effectiveness of usual care with or without antidepressant medication for primary care patients with minor or mild-major depression: a randomized equivalence trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Minor and mild-major depression are highly prevalent in primary care. There is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of antidepressants in the treatment of minor and mild-major depression. We compared the effectiveness of usual primary care treatment, with or without antidepressants, in minor and mild-major depression.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A pragmatic patient-randomized equivalence trial with 52 weeks follow-up was conducted in The Netherlands. In total, 59 primary care physicians (PCPs) recruited and treated 181 adult patients with minor or mild-major depression. Patients were randomized to four consultations within 3 months of usual care plus antidepressants (UCandAD) or usual care alone (UCnoAD). The Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was used to assess changes in severity of depressive symptoms. The predefined equivalence margin was set at five points. Multilevel analysis was used to analyze the data. Secondary outcome measures were the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients received on average 3.0 (SD 1.4) 15-min consultations within 3 months with (n = 85) or without paroxetine (n = 96). Equivalence of UCandAD and UCnoAD was demonstrated in the intention-to-treat analyses as well as the per-protocol analysis after 6 weeks, but not at 13, 26 and 52 weeks follow-up. No statistical differences in effectiveness between treatment groups were found in the intention-to-treat analysis. No differences in the physical and mental functioning (SF-36) were found between the treatment groups. Patients allocated to UCandAD were slightly more satisfied with their treatment at 13 weeks follow-up (but not at 52 weeks follow-up) than patients allocated to UCnoAD. Preliminary analyses suggested that subgroups such as patients with mild-major (instead of a minor) depression might benefit from antidepressant treatment. Patients who were assigned to their preferred treatment (in particular to UCnoAD) were more often compliant and had better clinical outcomes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>UCandAD was as effective as UCnoAD over the first 6 weeks, but not at 13, 26, and 52 weeks. However, superiority of either treatment could not be demonstrated either. The question whether antidepressants add any clinical effect to usual care remains unresolved. We recommend future studies to look for subgroups of patients who may benefit from antidepressants.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Dutch Trial Registry ISRCN03007807.</p

Frequent attenders in general practice: problem solving treatment provided by nurses [ISRCTN51021015]

BACKGROUND: There is a need for assistance from primary care mental health workers in general practice in the Netherlands. General practitioners (GPs) experience an overload of frequent attenders suffering from psychological problems. Problem Solving Treatment (PST) is a brief psychological treatment tailored for use in a primary care setting. PST is provided by nurses, and earlier research has shown that it is a treatment at least as effective as usual care. However, research outcomes are not totally satisfying. This protocol describes a randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of PST provided by nurses for patients in general practice. The results of this study, which currently being carried out, will be presented as soon as they are available. METHODS/DESIGN: This study protocol describes the design of a randomized controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PST and usual care compared to usual care only. Patients, 18 years and older, who present psychological problems and are frequent attenders in general practice are recruited by the research assistant. The participants receive questionnaires at baseline, after the intervention, and again after 3 months and 9 months. Primary outcome is the reduction of symptoms, and other outcomes measured are improvement in problem solving skills, psychological and physical well being, daily functioning, social support, coping styles, problem evaluation and health care utilization. DISCUSSION: Our results may either confirm that PST in primary care is an effective way of dealing with emotional disorders and a promising addition to the primary care in the UK and USA, or may question this assumption. This trial will allow an evaluation of the effects of PST in practical circumstances and in a rather heterogeneous group of primary care patients. This study delivers scientific support for this use and therefore indications for optimal treatment and referral

Brief cognitive behavioral therapy compared to general practitioners care for depression in primary care: a randomized trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Depressive disorders are highly prevalent in primary care (PC) and are associated with considerable functional impairment and increased health care use. Research has shown that many patients prefer psychological treatments to pharmacotherapy, however, it remains unclear which treatment is most optimal for depressive patients in primary care.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A randomized, multi-centre trial involving two intervention groups: one receiving brief cognitive behavioral therapy and the other receiving general practitioner care. General practitioners from 109 General Practices in Nijmegen and Amsterdam (The Netherlands) will be asked to include patients aged between 18-70 years presenting with depressive symptomatology, who do not receive an active treatment for their depressive complaints. Patients will be telephonically assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) to ascertain study eligibility. Eligible patients will be randomized to one of two treatment conditions: either 8 sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy by a first line psychologist or general practitioner's care according to The Dutch College of General Practitioners Practice Guideline (NHG- standaard). Baseline and follow-up assessments are scheduled at 0, 6, 12 and 52 weeks following the start of the intervention. Primary outcome will be measured with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HDRS-17) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Outcomes will be analyzed on an intention to treat basis.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ISRCTN65811640</p

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

Randomised controlled trial of a psychiatric consultation model for treatment of common mental disorder in the occupational health setting

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders are the most prevalent of all mental disorders, with the highest burden in terms of work absenteeism and utilization of health care services. Evidence-based treatments are available, but recognition and treatment could be improved, especially in the occupational health setting. The situation in this setting has recently changed in the Netherlands because of new legislation, which has resulted in reduced sickness absence. Severe mental disorder has now become one of the main causes of work absenteeism. Occupational physicians (OPs) are expected to take an active role in diagnosis and treatment, and seem to be in need of support for a new approach to handle cases of more complex mental disorders. Psychiatric consultation can be a collaborative care model to achieve this. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a two-armed cluster-randomized clinical trial, with randomization among OPs. Forty OPs in two big companies providing medical care for multiple companies will be randomized to either the intervention group, i.e. psychiatric consultation embedded in a training programme, or the control group, i.e. only training aimed at recognition and providing Care As Usual. 60 patients will be included who have been absent from work for 6–52 weeks and who, after screening and a MINI interview, are diagnosed with depressive disorder, anxiety disorder or somatoform disorder based on DSM-IV criteria. Baseline measurements and follow up measurements (at 3 months and 6 months) will be assessed with questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is level of general functioning according to the SF-20. Secondary measures are severity of the mental disorder according to the PHQ and the SCL-90, quality of life (EQ-D5), measures of Return To Work and cost-effectiveness of the treatment assessed with the TiC-P. Process measures will be adherence to the treatment plan and assessment of the treatment provided by the Psychiatric Consultant (PC) in both groups. DISCUSSION: In the current study, a psychiatric consultation model that has already proved to be effective in the primary care setting, and aimed to enhance evidence-based care for patients with work absenteeism and common mental disorder will be evaluated for its efficacy and cost-effectiveness in the occupational health setting

Stepped care treatment for depression and anxiety in primary care. a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Depressive and anxiety disorders are common in general practice but not always treated adequately. Introducing stepped care might improve this. In this randomized trial we examined the effectiveness of such a stepped care model.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study population consisted of primary care attendees aged 18-65 years with minor or major DSM-IV depressive and/or anxiety disorders, recruited through screening. We randomized 120 patients to either stepped care or care as usual. The stepped care program consisted of (1) <it>watchful waiting</it>, (2) <it>guided self-help</it>, (3) short face-to-face <it>Problem Solving Treatment </it>and (4) <it>pharmacotherapy and/or specialized mental health care</it>. Patients were assessed at baseline and after 8, 16 and 24 weeks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Symptoms of depression and anxiety decreased significantly over time for both groups. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (IDS: <it>P </it>= 0.35 and HADS: <it>P </it>= 0.64). The largest, but not significant, effect (<it>d </it>= -0.21) was found for anxiety on T3. In both groups approximately 48% of the patients were recovered from their DSM-IV diagnosis at the final 6 months assessment.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In summary we could not demonstrate that stepped care for depression and anxiety in general practice was more effective than care as usual. Possible reasons are discussed.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trails: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN17831610">ISRCTN17831610</a>.</p

Randomised controlled trial of tailored interventions to improve the management of anxiety and depressive disorders in primary care

Contains fulltext : 96261.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depressive disorders are highly prevalent disorders and are mostly treated in primary care. The management of these disorders by general practitioners is not always consistent with prevailing guidelines because of a variety of factors. Designing implementation strategies tailored to prospectively identified barriers could lead to more guideline-recommended care. Although tailoring of implementation strategies is promoted in practice, little is known about the effect on improving the quality of care for the early recognition, diagnosis, and stepped care treatment allocation in patients with anxiety or depressive disorders in general practice. This study examines whether the tailored strategy supplemented with training and feedback is more effective than providing training and feedback alone. METHODS: In this cluster randomised controlled trial, a total of 22 general practices will be assigned to one of two conditions: (1) training, feedback, and tailored interventions and (2) training and feedback. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients who have been recognised to have anxiety and/or depressive disorder. The secondary outcome measures in patients are severity of anxiety and depressive symptoms, level of functioning, expectation towards and experience with care, quality of life, and economic costs. Measures are taken after the start of the intervention at baseline and at three- and six-month follow-ups. Secondary outcome measures in general practitioners are adherence to guideline-recommended care in care that has been delivered, the proportion of antidepressant prescriptions, and number of referrals to specialised mental healthcare facilities. Data will be gathered from the electronic medical patient records from the patients included in the study. In a process evaluation, the identification of barriers to change and the relations between prospectively identified barriers and improvement interventions selected for use will be described, as well as the factors that influence the provision of guideline-recommended care. DISCUSSION: It is hypothesised that the adherence to guideline recommendations will be improved by designing implementation interventions that are tailored to prospectively identified barriers in the local context of general practitioners. Currently, there is insufficient evidence on the most effective and efficient approaches to tailoring, including how barriers should be identified and how interventions should be selected to address the barriers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR1912

Ten-year trends in benzodiazepine use in the Dutch population

Background In the past decades knowledge on adequate treatment of affective disorders and awareness of the negative consequences of long-term benzodiazepine use increased. Therefore, a decrease in benzodiazepine use is expected, particularly in prolonged use. The aim of this study was to assess time trends in benzodiazepine use. Methods and material Data from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA) were used to investigate trends in benzodiazepine use between 1992 and 2002 in two population-based samples aged 55-64 years. Differences between the two samples with respect to benzodiazepine use and to sociodemographic, physical health and mental health characteristics were described and tested with chi- square tests and logistic regression analyses. Results Benzodiazepine use remained stable over 10 years, with 7.8% in LASA-1 (n = 874) and 7.9% in LASA-2 (n = 919) (p = 0.90) with a persisting preponderance in women and in people with low education, low income, chronic physical diseases, functional limitations, cognitive impairment, depression, anxiety complaints, sleep problems and when using antidepressants. Long-term use remained high with 70% in 1992 and 80% in 2002 of total benzodiazepine use. Conclusion In the Dutch population aged 55-64, overall benzodiazepine use remained stable from 1992 to 2002, with a high proportion of long-term users, despite the effort to reduce benzodiazepine use and the renewal of the guidelines. More effort should be made to decrease prolonged benzodiazepine use in this middle-aged group, because of the increasing risks with ageing. © The Author(s) 2011

One consensual depression diagnosis tool to serve many countries: a challenge! A RAND/UCLA methodology

Objective From a systematic literature review (SLR), it became clear that a consensually validated tool was needed by European General Practitioner (GP) researchers in order to allow multi-centred collaborative research, in daily practice, throughout Europe. Which diagnostic tool for depression, validated against psychiatric examination according to the DSM, would GPs select as the best for use in clinical research, taking into account the combination of effectiveness, reliability and ergonomics? A RAND/UCLA, which combines the qualities of the Delphi process and of the nominal group, was used. GP researchers from different European countries were selected. The SLR extracted tools were validated against the DSM. The Youden index was used as an effectiveness criterion and Cronbach’s alpha as a reliability criterion. Ergonomics data were extracted from the literature. Ergonomics were tested face-to-face. Results The SLR extracted 7 tools. Two instruments were considered sufficiently effective and reliable for use: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-25 (HSCL-25). After testing face-to-face, HSCL-25 was selected. A multicultural consensus on one diagnostic tool for depression was obtained for the HSCL-25. This tool will provide the opportunity to select homogeneous populations for European collaborative research in daily practice