Distress and anhedonia as predictors of depression treatment outcome: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record Two core features of depression include depressed mood (heightened distress) and anhedonia (reduced pleasure). Despite their centrality to depression, studies have not examined their contribution to treatment outcomes in a randomized clinical trial providing mainstream treatments like antidepressant medications (ADM) and cognitive therapy (CT). We used baseline distress and anhedonia derived from a factor analysis of the Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire to predict remission and recovery in 433 individuals with recurrent/chronic major depressive disorder. Patients were provided with only ADM or both ADM and CT. Overall, higher baseline distress and anhedonia predicted longer times to remission within one year and recovery within three years. When controlling for treatment condition, distress improved prediction of outcomes over and above anhedonia, while anhedonia did not improve prediction of outcomes over and above distress. Interactions with treatment condition demonstrated that individuals with higher distress and anhedonia benefited from receiving CT in addition to ADM, whereas there was no added benefit of CT for individuals with lower distress and anhedonia. Assessing distress and anhedonia prior to treatment may help select patients who will benefit most from CT in addition to ADM. For the treatments and outcome measures tested, utilizing distress to guide treatment planning may yield the greatest benefit. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00057577.National Institute of Mental Healt

What factors indicate prognosis for adults with depression in primary care? A protocol for meta-analyses of individual patient data using the Dep-GP database [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

BACKGROUND: Pre-treatment severity is a key indicator of prognosis for those with depression. Knowledge is limited on how best to encompass severity of disorders. A number of non-severity related factors such as social support and life events are also indicators of prognosis. It is not clear whether this holds true after adjusting for pre-treatment severity as a) a depressive symptom scale score, and b) a broader construct encompassing symptom severity and related indicators: “disorder severity”. In order to investigate this, data from the individual participants of clinical trials which have measured a breadth of “disorder severity” related factors are needed. AIMS: 1) To assess the association between outcomes for adults seeking treatment for depression and the severity of depression pre-treatment, considered both as i) depressive symptom severity only and ii) “disorder severity” which includes depressive symptom severity and comorbid anxiety, chronicity, history of depression, history of previous treatment, functional impairment and health-related quality of life. 2) To determine whether i) social support, ii) life events, iii) alcohol misuse, and iv) demographic factors (sex, age, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, level of educational attainment, and financial wellbeing) are prognostic indicators of outcomes, independent of baseline “disorder severity” and the type of treatment received. METHODS: Databases were searched for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that recruited adults seeking treatment for depression from their general practitioners and used the same diagnostic and screening instrument to measure severity at baseline – the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule; outcome measures could differ between studies. Chief investigators of all studies meeting inclusion criteria were contacted and individual patient data (IPD) were requested. CONCLUSIONS: In total 15 RCTs met inclusion criteria. The Dep-GP database will include the 6271 participants from the 13 studies that provided IPD. This protocol outlines how these data will be analysed. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019129512 (01/04/2019

The personalized advantage index: Translating research on prediction into individualized treatment recommendations. A demonstration

Background: Advances in personalized medicine require the identification of variables that predict differential response to treatments as well as the development and refinement of methods to transform predictive information into actionable recommendations. Objective: To illustrate and test a new method for integrating predictive information to aid in treatment selection, using data from a randomized treatment comparison. Method: Data from a trial of antidepressant medications (N = 104) versus cognitive behavioral therapy (N = 50) for Major Depressive Disorder were used to produce predictions of post-treatment scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) in each of the two treatments for each of the 154 patients. The patient's own data were not used in the models that yielded these predictions. Five pre-randomization variables that predicted differential response (marital status, employment status, life events, comorbid personality disorder, and prior medication trials) were included in regression models, permitting the calculation of each patient's Personalized Advantage Index (PAI), in HRSD units. Results: For 60% of the sample a clinically meaningful advantage (PAI≥3) was predicted for one of the treatments, relative to the other. When these patients were divided into those randomly assigned to their "Optimal" treatment versus those assigned to their "Non-optimal" treatment, outcomes in the former group were superior (d = 0.58, 95% CI .17-1.01). Conclusions: This approach to treatment selection, implemented in the context of two equally effective treatments, yielded effects that, if obtained prospectively, would rival those routinely observed in comparisons of active versus control treatments. © 2014 DeRubeis et al

A Patient Stratification Approach to Identifying the Likelihood of Continued Chronic Depression and Relapse Following Treatment for Depression

BACKGROUND: Subgrouping methods have the potential to support treatment decision making for patients with depression. Such approaches have not been used to study the continued course of depression or likelihood of relapse following treatment. METHOD: Data from individual participants of seven randomised controlled trials were analysed. Latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups based on baseline characteristics. Associations between profiles and odds of both continued chronic depression and relapse up to one year post-treatment were explored. Differences in outcomes were investigated within profiles for those treated with antidepressants, psychological therapy, and usual care. RESULTS: Seven profiles were identified; profiles with higher symptom severity and long durations of both anxiety and depression at baseline were at higher risk of relapse and of chronic depression. Members of profile five (likely long durations of depression and anxiety, moderately-severe symptoms, and past antidepressant use) appeared to have better outcomes with psychological therapies: antidepressants vs. psychological therapies (OR (95% CI) for relapse = 2.92 (1.24–6.87), chronic course = 2.27 (1.27–4.06)) and usual care vs. psychological therapies (relapse = 2.51 (1.16–5.40), chronic course = 1.98 (1.16–3.37)). CONCLUSIONS: Profiles at greater risk of poor outcomes could benefit from more intensive treatment and frequent monitoring. Patients in profile five may benefit more from psychological therapies than other treatments

Life events and treatment prognosis for depression: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

Objective: To investigate associations between major life events and prognosis independent of treatment type: (1) after adjusting for clinical prognostic factors and socio-demographics; (2) amongst patients with depressive episodes at least six-months long; and (3) patients with a first life-time depressive episode. // Methods: Six RCTs of adults seeking treatment for depression in primary care met eligibility criteria, individual patient data (IPD) were collated from all six (n = 2858). Participants were randomized to any treatment and completed the same baseline assessment of life events, demographics and clinical prognostic factors. Two-stage random effects meta-analyses were conducted. // Results: Reporting any major life events was associated with poorer prognosis regardless of treatment type. Controlling for baseline clinical factors, socio-demographics and social support resulted in minimal residual evidence of associations between life events and treatment prognosis. However, removing factors that might mediate the relationships between life events and outcomes reporting: arguments/disputes, problem debt, violent crime, losing one's job, and three or more life events were associated with considerably worse prognoses (percentage difference in 3–4 months depressive symptoms compared to no reported life events =30.3%(95%CI: 18.4–43.3)). // Conclusions: Assessing for clinical prognostic factors, social support, and socio-demographics is likely to be more informative for prognosis than assessing self-reported recent major life events. However, clinicians might find it useful to ask about such events, and if they are still affecting the patient, consider interventions to tackle problems related to those events (e.g. employment support, mediation, or debt advice). Further investigations of the efficacy of such interventions will be important

What factors indicate prognosis for adults with depression in primary care? A protocol for meta-analyses of individual patient data using the dep-gp database [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

This is the final version. Available on open access from F1000Research via the DOI in this record. Data availability: Underlying data: No data are associated with this article Extended data: Open Science Framework: What factors indicate prognosis for adults with depression in primary care? https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UX95Q (Buckman, 2019) This project contains the following extended data: details of missing data across dep-gp studies.docx (Missing data from included studies) Ethics approval and trial registration details for dep-gp studies.docx (Ethics approval and trial registration details of included studies) Search results_OSF.docx (Search terms and results of searches)Background:Pre-treatment severity is a key indicator of prognosis for those with depression. Knowledge is limited on how best to encompass severity of disorders. A number of non-severity related factors such as social support and life events are also indicators of prognosis. It is not clear whether this holds true after adjusting for pre-treatment severity as a) a depressive symptom scale score, and b) a broader construct encompassing symptom severity and related indicators: “disorder severity”. In order to investigate this, data from the individual participants of clinical trials which have measured a breadth of “disorder severity” related factors are needed. Aims: 1) To assess the association between outcomes for adults seeking treatment for depression and the severity of depression pre-treatment, considered both as i) depressive symptom severity only and ii) “disorder severity” which includes depressive symptom severity and comorbid anxiety, chronicity, history of depression, history of previous treatment, functional impairment and health-related quality of life. 2) To determine whether i) social support, ii) life events, iii) alcohol misuse, and iv) demographic factors (sex, age, ethnicity, marital status, employment and iv) demographic factors (sex, age, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, level of educational attainment, and financial wellbeing) are prognostic indicators of outcomes, independent of baseline “disorder severity” and the type of treatment received. Methods: Databases were searched for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that recruited adults seeking treatment for depression from their general practitioners and used the same diagnostic and screening instrument to measure severity at baseline – the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule; outcome measures could differ between studies. Chief investigators of all studies meeting inclusion criteria were contacted and individual patient data (IPD) were requested. Conclusions: In total 15 RCTs met inclusion criteria. The Dep-GP database will include the 6271 participants from the 13 studies that provided IPD. This protocol outlines how these data will be analysed.Wellcome TrustUniversity College LondonNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Royal College of PsychiatristsMQ FoundationUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of PsychologyMedical Research Council (MRC)University of SouthamptonUniversity of Exete

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

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

Effectiveness of counseling for anxiety and depression in mothers of children ages 0-30 months by community workers in Karachi, Pakistan: a quasi experimental study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The prevalence of anxiety/depression is quite high during the perinatal period but unfortunately its detection and treatment have been less than satisfactory. Moreover, many women are reluctant to take pharmacotherapy for fear of excretion of drugs into their breast milk. This study assesses the effectiveness of counseling from minimally trained community health workers in reducing anxiety/depression, the rate of recurrence and the interval preceding recurrence in women during first two and a half years after childbirth.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a quasi-experimental study, community women from two under-privileged communities were trained in data gathering, teaching healthy child-rearing practices, basic counseling skills, and screening for anxiety/depression by using an indigenously developed questionnaire, the Aga Khan University Anxiety and Depression Scale (AKUADS). The diagnosis was further confirmed by a clinical psychologist using DSM IV criteria. After obtaining consent, 420 women were screened and 102 were identified as having anxiety/depression. Screening was carried out after 1, 2, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 30 months of a live birth. Only 62 out of 102 agreed to be counseled and received eight weekly sessions. AKUADS was re-administered at 4 weeks and 8 weeks after the beginning of counseling; this was followed by the clinical psychologist's interview for confirmation of response. After recovery, screening was continued every 3 months for detection of recurrence throughout the study period. Out of the women who had declined counseling 12 agreed to retake AKUADS after 4 and 8 weeks of diagnosis. Independent samples t-test, chi-square test, Repeated Measures ANOVA and Kaplan Meier technique were used for the analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A significant decline in level of anxiety/depression was found in both the counseled and the non-counseled groups at 4 and 8 weeks (p-value < 0.001) but the counseled group fared better than the non-counseled for recovery, reduction in the rate of recurrence and increase in the duration before relapse.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>As our results cannot be generalized; further studies need to be carried out, to assess the benefit of incorporating minimal counseling skills in the training of community health workers.</p