A comparison of four different approaches to measuring health utility in depressed patients.

BACKGROUND: A variety of instruments are used to measure health related quality of life. Few data exist on the performance and agreement of different instruments in a depressed population. The aim of this study was to investigate agreement between, and suitability of, the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-5D VAS), SF-6D and SF-12 new algorithm for measuring health utility in depressed patients. METHODS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland and Altman approaches were used to assess agreement. Instrument sensitivity was analysed by: (1) plotting utility scores for the instruments against one another; (2) correlating utility scores and depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)); and (3) using Tukey's procedure. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis assessed instrument responsiveness to change. Acceptability was assessed by comparing instrument completion rates. RESULTS: The overall ICC was 0.57. Bland and Altman plots showed wide limits of agreement for each pair wise comparison, except between the SF-6D and SF-12 new algorithm. Plots of utility scores displayed 'ceiling effects' in the EQ-5D-3L index and 'floor effects' in the SF-6D and SF-12 new algorithm. All instruments showed a negative monotonic relationship with BDI, but the EQ-5D-3L index and EQ-5D VAS could not differentiate between depression severity sub-groups. The SF-based instruments were better able to detect changes in health state over time. There was no difference in completion rates of the four instruments. CONCLUSIONS: There was a lack of agreement between utility scores generated by the different instruments. According to the criteria of sensitivity, responsiveness and acceptability that we applied, the SF-6D and SF-12 may be more suitable for the measurement of health related utility in a depressed population than the EQ-5D-3L, which is the instrument currently recommended by NICE.The CoBalT study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme (project number: 06/ 404/02)

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

Does anxiety moderate the effectiveness of mirtazapine in patients with treatment-resistant depression? A secondary analysis of the MIR trial

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence to guide treatment of comorbid depression and anxiety. Preliminary evidence suggests mirtazapine may be effective in treating patients with both depression and anxiety symptoms. METHODS: We undertook a secondary analysis of mirtazapine (MIR): a placebo-controlled trial of the addition of mirtazapine to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in primary care. We subdivided participants into three groups by baseline generalized anxiety disorder score (GAD-7): severe (GAD-7 ⩾ 16), moderate (GAD-7 = 11-15), no/mild (GAD-7 ⩽ 10). We used linear regression including likelihood-ratio testing of interaction terms to assess how baseline anxiety altered the response of participants to mirtazapine as measured by 12-week GAD-7 and Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) scores. RESULTS: Baseline generalized anxiety moderated mirtazapine's effect as measured by GAD-7 (p = 0.041) and BDI-II (p = 0.088) at 12 weeks. Participants with severe generalized anxiety receiving mirtazapine had lower 12-week GAD-7 score (adjusted difference between means (ADM) -2.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.69 to -4.95) and larger decreases in BDI-II score (ADM -6.36, 95% CI -1.60 to -10.84) than placebo. Conversely, there was no anxiolytic benefit (ADM 0.28, 95% CI -1.05 to 1.60) or antidepressant benefit (ADM -0.17, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.68) compared with placebo in those with no/mild generalized anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: These findings extend the evidence for the effectiveness of mirtazapine to reduce generalized anxiety in TRD in primary care. These results may inform targeted prescribing in depression based on concurrent anxiety symptoms, although these conclusions are constrained by the post-hoc nature of this analysis

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

Cost-effectiveness of Sertraline in primary care according to initial severity and duration of depressive symptoms: findings from the PANDA RCT

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are commonly prescribed for depression, but it is unclear whether treatment efficacy depends on severity and duration of symptoms and how prescribing might be targeted cost-effectively. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the cost-effectiveness of the antidepressant sertraline compared with placebo in subgroups defined by severity and duration of depressive symptoms. METHODS: We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the NHS and Personal and Social Services (PSS) in the UK alongside the PANDA (What are the indications for Prescribing ANtiDepressants that will leAd to a clinical benefit?) randomised controlled trial (RCT), which compared sertraline with placebo over a 12-week period. Quality of life data were collected at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 weeks post-randomisation using EQ-5D-5L, from which we calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs (in 2017/18£) were collected using patient records and from resource use questionnaires administered at each follow-up interval. Differences in mean costs and mean QALYs and net monetary benefits were estimated. Our primary analysis used net monetary benefit regressions to identify any interaction between the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and subgroups defined by baseline symptom severity (0-11; 12-19; 20+ on the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised) and, separately, duration of symptoms (greater or less than 2 years duration). A secondary analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of sertraline versus placebo, irrespective of duration or severity. RESULTS: There was no evidence of an association between the baseline severity of depressive symptoms and the cost-effectiveness of sertraline. Compared to patients with low symptom severity, the expected net benefits in patients with moderate symptoms were £24 (95% CI - £280 to £328; p value 0.876) and the expected net benefits in patients with high symptom severity were £37 (95% CI - £221 to £296; p value 0.776). Patients who had a longer history of depressive symptoms at baseline had lower expected net benefits from sertraline than those with a shorter history; however, the difference was uncertain (- £27 [95% CI - £258 to £204]; p value 0.817). In the secondary analysis, patients treated with sertraline had higher expected net benefits (£122 [95% CI £18 to £226]; p value 0.101) than those in the placebo group. Sertraline had a high probability (> 95%) of being cost-effective if the health system was willing to pay at least £20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence of a prespecified threshold based on severity or symptom duration that GPs could use to target prescribing to a subgroup of patients where sertraline is most cost-effective. Sertraline is probably a cost-effective treatment for depressive symptoms in UK primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN84544741

Management of treatment-resistant depression in primary care:a mixed-methods study

Background: Non-response to antidepressant medication is common in primary care. Little is known about how GPs manage patients with depression that does not respond to medication. Aim: To describe usual care for primary care patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Design and setting: Mixed-methods study using data from a UK primary care multicentre randomised controlled trial. Method: In total, 235 patients with TRD randomised to continue with usual GP care were followed up at 3-month intervals for a year. Self-report data were collected on antidepressant medication, number of GP visits, and other treatments received. In addition, 14 semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with a purposive sample after the 6-month follow-up and analysed thematically. Results: Most patients continued on the same dose of a single antidepressant between baseline and 3 months (n = 147/186 at 3 months, 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 73 to 85%)). Figures were similar for later follow-ups (for example, 9–12 months: 72% (95% CI = 63 to 79%). Medication changes (increasing dose; switching to a different antidepressant; adding a second antidepressant) were uncommon. Participants described usual care mainly as taking antidepressants, with consultations focused on other (physical) health concerns. Few accessed other treatments or were referred to secondary care. Conclusion: Usual care in patients with TRD mainly entailed taking antidepressants, and medication changes were uncommon. The high prevalence of physical and psychological comorbidity means that, when these patients consult, their depression may not be discussed. Strategies are needed to ensure the active management of this large group of patients whose depression does not respond to antidepressant medication

Does anxiety moderate the effectiveness of mirtazapine in patients with treatment-resistant depression? A secondary analysis of the MIR trial

This is the final version. Available on open access from SAGE Publications via the DOI in this record Background: There is a lack of evidence to guide treatment of comorbid depression and anxiety. Preliminary evidence suggests mirtazapine may be effective in treating patients with both depression and anxiety symptoms. Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of mirtazapine (MIR): a placebo-controlled trial of the addition of mirtazapine to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in primary care. We subdivided participants into three groups by baseline generalized anxiety disorder score (GAD-7): severe (GAD-7 ⩾ 16), moderate (GAD-7 = 11–15), no/mild (GAD-7 ⩽ 10). We used linear regression including likelihood-ratio testing of interaction terms to assess how baseline anxiety altered the response of participants to mirtazapine as measured by 12-week GAD-7 and Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) scores. Results: Baseline generalized anxiety moderated mirtazapine’s effect as measured by GAD-7 (p = 0.041) and BDI-II (p = 0.088) at 12 weeks. Participants with severe generalized anxiety receiving mirtazapine had lower 12-week GAD-7 score (adjusted difference between means (ADM) −2.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.69 to −4.95) and larger decreases in BDI-II score (ADM −6.36, 95% CI −1.60 to −10.84) than placebo. Conversely, there was no anxiolytic benefit (ADM 0.28, 95% CI −1.05 to 1.60) or antidepressant benefit (ADM −0.17, 95% CI −3.02 to 2.68) compared with placebo in those with no/mild generalized anxiety. Conclusions: These findings extend the evidence for the effectiveness of mirtazapine to reduce generalized anxiety in TRD in primary care. These results may inform targeted prescribing in depression based on concurrent anxiety symptoms, although these conclusions are constrained by the post-hoc nature of this analysis.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

A Network of Conserved Damage Survival Pathways Revealed by a Genomic RNAi Screen

Damage initiates a pleiotropic cellular response aimed at cellular survival when appropriate. To identify genes required for damage survival, we used a cell-based RNAi screen against the Drosophila genome and the alkylating agent methyl methanesulphonate (MMS). Similar studies performed in other model organisms report that damage response may involve pleiotropic cellular processes other than the central DNA repair components, yet an intuitive systems level view of the cellular components required for damage survival, their interrelationship, and contextual importance has been lacking. Further, by comparing data from different model organisms, identification of conserved and presumably core survival components should be forthcoming. We identified 307 genes, representing 13 signaling, metabolic, or enzymatic pathways, affecting cellular survival of MMS–induced damage. As expected, the majority of these pathways are involved in DNA repair; however, several pathways with more diverse biological functions were also identified, including the TOR pathway, transcription, translation, proteasome, glutathione synthesis, ATP synthesis, and Notch signaling, and these were equally important in damage survival. Comparison with genomic screen data from Saccharomyces cerevisiae revealed no overlap enrichment of individual genes between the species, but a conservation of the pathways. To demonstrate the functional conservation of pathways, five were tested in Drosophila and mouse cells, with each pathway responding to alkylation damage in both species. Using the protein interactome, a significant level of connectivity was observed between Drosophila MMS survival proteins, suggesting a higher order relationship. This connectivity was dramatically improved by incorporating the components of the 13 identified pathways within the network. Grouping proteins into “pathway nodes” qualitatively improved the interactome organization, revealing a highly organized “MMS survival network.” We conclude that identification of pathways can facilitate comparative biology analysis when direct gene/orthologue comparisons fail. A biologically intuitive, highly interconnected MMS survival network was revealed after we incorporated pathway data in our interactome analysis

The host metabolite D-serine contributes to bacterial niche specificity through gene selection

Escherichia coli comprise a diverse array of both commensals and niche-specific pathotypes. The ability to cause disease results from both carriage of specific virulence factors and regulatory control of these via environmental stimuli. Moreover, host metabolites further refine the response of bacteria to their environment and can dramatically affect the outcome of the host–pathogen interaction. Here, we demonstrate that the host metabolite, D-serine, selectively affects gene expression in E. coli O157:H7. Transcriptomic profiling showed exposure to D-serine results in activation of the SOS response and suppresses expression of the Type 3 Secretion System (T3SS) used to attach to host cells. We also show that concurrent carriage of both the D-serine tolerance locus (dsdCXA) and the locus of enterocyte effacement pathogenicity island encoding a T3SS is extremely rare, a genotype that we attribute to an ‘evolutionary incompatibility’ between the two loci. This study demonstrates the importance of co-operation between both core and pathogenic genetic elements in defining niche specificity