Innovative psychological treatments for depression

A number of high-intensity psychosocial interventions have been shown to be as efficacious as and more enduring than medications in the treatment of nonpsychotic depression. Moreover, there have been important advances in the development of strategies to facilitate the selection of the best treatment for a given patient with a depression diagnosis. However, the demand for services is too great to be met by conventional high-intensity approaches alone. Some of the most exciting work in recent years has focused on the development of low-intensity approaches that can benefit many people and do so cost-effectively

Guided Act and Feel Indonesia (GAF-ID) – Internet-based behavioral activation intervention for depression in Indonesia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Depression is a leading cause of disease burden across the world. However, in low-middle income countries (LMICs), access to mental health services is severely limited because of the insufficient number of mental health professionals available. The WHO initiated the Mental Health Gap Action Program (mhGAP) aiming to provide a coherent strategy for closing the gap between what is urgently needed and what is available in LMICs. Internet-based treatment is a promising strategy that can be made available to a large number of people now that Internet access is increasing rapidly throughout the world. The present study will investigate whether such an Internet-based treatment for depression is effective in Indonesia.  Methods: An Internet-based behavioral activation treatment, with support by lay counselors who will provide online feedback on the assignments and supportive phone contact to encourage participants to work in the program (Guided Act and Feel Indonesia/GAF-ID), is compared to an online-delivered minimal psychoeducation without any support (psychoeducation/PE). Initial assessment for inclusion is based on a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score of at least 10 and meeting criteria for major depressive disorder or persistent depressive disorder as assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5). Participants with depression (N=312) will be recruited and randomly assigned to GAF-ID or PE. Overall assessments will be done at baseline, post intervention (10 weeks from baseline) and follow-ups (3 months and 6 months from baseline). The primary outcome is the reduction of depression symptoms as measured by the PHQ-9 after 10 weeks from baseline.  Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first study in Indonesia that examines the effectiveness of an Internet-based intervention for depression in a randomized controlled trial. The hope is that it can serve as a starting point for bridging the mental health gap in Indonesia and other LMICs. Trial registration: Nederlands Trial Register ( www.trialregister.nl ): NTR5920 , registered on 1 July 2016

Initial severity of depression and efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy: individual-participant data meta-analysis of pill-placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND: The influence of baseline severity has been examined for antidepressant medications but has not been studied properly for cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in comparison with pill placebo. AIMS: To synthesise evidence regarding the influence of initial severity on efficacy of CBT from all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which CBT, in face-to-face individual or group format, was compared with pill-placebo control in adults with major depression. METHOD: A systematic review and an individual-participant data meta-analysis using mixed models that included trial effects as random effects. We used multiple imputation to handle missing data. RESULTS: We identified five RCTs, and we were given access to individual-level data (n = 509) for all five. The analyses revealed that the difference in changes in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression between CBT and pill placebo was not influenced by baseline severity (interaction P = 0.43). Removing the non-significant interaction term from the model, the difference between CBT and pill placebo was a standardised mean difference of -0.22 (95% CI -0.42 to -0.02, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients suffering from major depression can expect as much benefit from CBT across the wide range of baseline severity. This finding can help inform individualised treatment decisions by patients and their clinicians.R01 MH060998 - NIMH NIH HHS; R34 MH086668 - NIMH NIH HHS; R01 AT007257 - NCCIH NIH HHS; R21 MH101567 - NIMH NIH HHS; K02 MH001697 - NIMH NIH HHS; R01 MH060713 - NIMH NIH HHS; R34 MH099311 - NIMH NIH HHS; R21 MH102646 - NIMH NIH HHS; K23 MH100259 - NIMH NIH HHS; R01 MH099021 - NIMH NIH HH

The Healthy Activity Program lay counsellor delivered treatment for severe depression in India: systematic development and randomised evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the global treatment gap for mental disorders requires treatments that are economical, effective and culturally appropriate. AIMS: To describe a systematic approach to the development of a brief psychological treatment for patients with severe depression delivered by lay counsellors in primary healthcare. METHOD: The treatment was developed in three stages using a variety of methods: (a) identifying potential strategies; (b) developing a theoretical framework; and (c) evaluating the acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of the psychological treatment. RESULTS: The Healthy Activity Program (HAP) is delivered over 6-8 sessions and consists of behavioral activation as the core psychological framework with added emphasis on strategies such as problem-solving and activation of social networks. Key elements to improve acceptability and feasibility are also included. In an intention-to-treat analysis of a pilot randomised controlled trial (55 participants), the prevalence of depression (Beck Depression Inventory II ⩾19) after 2 months was lower in the HAP than the control arm (adjusted risk ratio = 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.94,P= 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic approach to the development of psychological treatments could be extended to other mental disorders. HAP is an acceptable and effective brief psychological treatment for severe depression delivered by lay counsellors in primary care

Can loss of agency and oppositional perturbation associated with antidepressant monotherapy and low-fidelity psychological treatment dilute the benefits of guideline-consistent depression treatment at the population level?

Contains fulltext : 226202.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Does publication bias inflate the apparent efficacy of psychological treatment for major depressive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of US national institutes of health-funded trials

Background The efficacy of antidepressant medication has been shown empirically to be overestimated due to publication bias, but this has only been inferred statistically with regard to psychological treatment for depression. We assessed directly the extent of study publication bias in trials examining the efficacy of psychological treatment for depression. Methods and Findings We identified US National Institutes of Health grants awarded to fund randomized clinical trials comparing psychological treatment to control conditions or other treatments in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder for the period 1972–2008, and we determined whether those grants led to publications. For studies that were not published, data were requested from investigators and included in the meta-analyses. Thirteen (23.6%) of the 55 funded grants that began trials did not result in publications, and two others never started. Among comparisons to control conditions, adding unpublished studies (Hedges’ g = 0.20; CI95% -0.11~0.51; k = 6) to published studies (g = 0.52; 0.37~0.68; k = 20) reduced the psychotherapy effect size point estimate (g = 0.39; 0.08~0.70) by 25%. Moreover, these findings may overestimate the "true" effect of psychological treatment for depression as outcome reporting bias could not be examined quantitatively. Conclusion The efficacy of psychological interventions for depression has been overestimated in the published literature, just as it has been for pharmacotherapy. Both are efficacious but not to the extent that the published literature would suggest. Funding agencies and journals should archive both original protocols and raw data from treatment trials to allow the detection and correction of outcome reporting bias. Clinicians, guidelines developers, and decision makers should be aware that the published literature overestimates the effects of the predominant treatments for depression

More treatment but no less depression:The treatment-prevalence paradox

Treatments for depression have improved, and their availability has markedly increased since the 1980s. Mysteriously the general population prevalence of depression has not decreased. This "treatment-prevalence paradox" (TPP) raises fundamental questions about the diagnosis and treatment of depression. We propose and evaluate seven explanations for the TPP. First, two explanations assume that improved and more widely available treatments have reduced prevalence, but that the reduction has been offset by an increase in: 1) misdiagnosing distress as depression, yielding more "false positive" diagnoses; or 2) an actual increase in depression incidence. Second, the remaining five explanations assume prevalence has not decreased, but suggest that: 3) treatments are less efficacious and 4) less enduring than the literature suggests; 5) trial efficacy doesn't generalize to real-world settings; 6) population-level treatment impact differs for chronic-recurrent versus non-recurrent cases; and 7) treatments have some iatrogenic consequences. Any of these seven explanations could undermine treatment impact on prevalence, thereby helping to explain the TPP. Our analysis reveals that there is little evidence that incidence or prevalence have increased as a result of error or fact (Explanations 1 and 2), and strong evidence that (a) the published literature overestimates short- and long-term treatment efficacy, (b) treatments are considerably less effective as deployed in "real world" settings, and (c) treatment impact differs substantially for chronic-recurrent cases relative to non-recurrent cases. Collectively, these a-c explanations likely account for most of the TPP. Lastly, little research exists on iatrogenic effects of current treatments (Explanation 7), but further exploration is critical

Measuring depression severity in global mental health: comparing the PHQ-9 and the BDI-II

Grant information: This research was funded by a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship grant to VP [091834]. BW is supported through an Intermediate Research Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust/India Alliance [502680]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Double trouble : does co-morbid chronic somatic illness increase risk for recurrence in depression? A systematic review

Objective: To perform a systematic review, and if possible a meta-analysis, to establish whether depressed patients with comorbid chronic somatic illnesses are a high risk "double trouble" group for depressive recurrence. Method: The databases PubMed, EMbase and PsycINFO were systematically searched until the 4th of December 2012 by using MeSH and free text terms. Additionally, reference lists of retrieved publications and treatment guidelines were reviewed, and experts were consulted. Inclusion criteria were: depression had to be measured at least twice during the study with qualified instruments and the chronic somatic illness had to be assessed by self-report or by a medical professional. Information on depressive recurrence was extracted and additionally risk ratios of recurrence were calculated. Results: The search generated four articles that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. These studies showed no differences in recurrence over one-two-three-and 6.5 years of follow-up for a total of 2010 depressed patients of which 694 patients with a co-morbid chronic somatic illness versus 1316 patients without (Study 1: RR = 0.49, 95% CI, 0.17-1.41 at one year follow-up and RR = 1.37, 95% CI, 0.78-2.41 at two year follow-up; Study 2: RR = 0.94, 95% CI, 0.65-1.36 at two year follow-up; Study 3: RR = 1.15, 95% CI, 0.40-3.27 at one year follow-up; RR = 1.07, 95% CI, 0.48-2.42 at two year follow-up and RR = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.55-1.77 at 6.5 years follow-up; Study 4: RR = 1.16, 95% CI, 0.86-1.57 at three year follow-up). Conclusion: We found no association between a heightened risk for depressive recurrence and co-morbid chronic somatic illnesses. There is a need for more longitudinal studies to justify the current specific treatment advice such as long-term pharmacological maintenance treatment for this presumed "double trouble" group