The contribution of depressive 'disorder characteristics' to determinations of prognosis for adults with depression: an individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate general factors associated with prognosis regardless of the type of treatment received, for adults with depression in primary care.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central (inception to 12/01/2020) for RCTs that included the most commonly used comprehensive measure of depressive and anxiety disorder symptoms and diagnoses, in primary care depression RCTs (the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule: CIS-R). Two-stage random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Twelve (n = 6024) of thirteen eligible studies (n = 6175) provided individual patient data. There was a 31% (95%CI: 25 to 37) difference in depressive symptoms at 3-4 months per standard deviation increase in baseline depressive symptoms. Four additional factors: the duration of anxiety; duration of depression; comorbid panic disorder; and a history of antidepressant treatment were also independently associated with poorer prognosis. There was evidence that the difference in prognosis when these factors were combined could be of clinical importance. Adding these variables improved the amount of variance explained in 3-4 month depressive symptoms from 16% using depressive symptom severity alone to 27%. Risk of bias (assessed with QUIPS) was low in all studies and quality (assessed with GRADE) was high. Sensitivity analyses did not alter our conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

When adults seek treatment for depression clinicians should routinely assess for the duration of anxiety, duration of depression, comorbid panic disorder, and a history of antidepressant treatment alongside depressive symptom severity. This could provide clinicians and patients with useful and desired information to elucidate prognosis and aid the clinical management of depression.

Approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety are the most frequent indication for which antidepressants are prescribed. Long-term antidepressant use is driving much of the internationally observed rise in antidepressant consumption. Surveys of antidepressant users suggest that 30% to 50% of long-term antidepressant prescriptions had no evidence-based indication. Unnecessary use of antidepressants puts people at risk of adverse events. However, high-certainty evidence is lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of approaches to discontinuing long-term antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched all databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) until January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing approaches to discontinuation with continuation of antidepressants (or usual care) for people with depression or anxiety who are prescribed antidepressants for at least six months. Interventions included discontinuation alone (abrupt or taper), discontinuation with psychological therapy support, and discontinuation with minimal intervention. Primary outcomes were successful discontinuation rate, relapse (as defined by authors of the original study), withdrawal symptoms, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, quality of life, social and occupational functioning, and severity of illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 studies involving 4995 participants. Nearly all studies were conducted in a specialist mental healthcare service and included participants with recurrent depression (i.e. two or more episodes of depression prior to discontinuation). All included trials were at high risk of bias. The main limitation of the review is bias due to confounding withdrawal symptoms with symptoms of relapse of depression. Withdrawal symptoms (such as low mood, dizziness) may have an effect on almost every outcome including adverse events, quality of life, social functioning, and severity of illness. Abrupt discontinuation Thirteen studies reported abrupt discontinuation of antidepressant. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that abrupt discontinuation without psychological support may increase risk of relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.74; 1373 participants, 10 studies) and there is insufficient evidence of its effect on adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.99; 1012 participants, 7 studies; I² = 37%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of abrupt discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. None of these studies included successful discontinuation rate as a primary endpoint. Discontinuation by "taper" Eighteen studies examined discontinuation by "tapering" (one week or longer). Most tapering regimens lasted four weeks or less. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that "tapered" discontinuation may lead to higher risk of relapse (HR 2.97, 95% CI 2.24 to 3.93; 1546 participants, 13 studies) with no or little difference in adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.38; 1479 participants, 7 studies; I² = 0%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. Discontinuation with psychological support Four studies reported discontinuation with psychological support. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that initiation of preventive cognitive therapy (PCT), or MBCT, combined with "tapering" may result in successful discontinuation rates of 40% to 75% in the discontinuation group (690 participants, 3 studies). Data from control groups in these studies were requested but are not yet available. Low-certainty evidence suggests that discontinuation combined with psychological intervention may result in no or little effect on relapse (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19; 690 participants, 3 studies) compared to continuation of antidepressants. Withdrawal symptoms were not measured. Pooling data on adverse events was not possible due to insufficient information (3 studies). Discontinuation with minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence from one study suggests that a letter to the general practitioner (GP) to review antidepressant treatment may result in no or little effect on successful discontinuation rate compared to usual care (6% versus 8%; 146 participants, 1 study) or on relapse (relapse rate 26% vs 13%; 146 participants, 1 study). No data on withdrawal symptoms nor adverse events were provided. None of the studies used low-intensity psychological interventions such as online support or a changed pharmaceutical formulation that allows tapering with low doses over several months. Insufficient data were available for the majority of people taking antidepressants in the community (i.e. those with only one or no prior episode of depression), for people aged 65 years and older, and for people taking antidepressants for anxiety.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, relatively few studies have focused on approaches to discontinuation of long-term antidepressants. We cannot make any firm conclusions about effects and safety of the approaches studied to date. The true effect and safety are likely to be substantially different from the data presented due to assessment of relapse of depression that is confounded by withdrawal symptoms. All other outcomes are confounded with withdrawal symptoms. Most tapering regimens were limited to four weeks or less. In the studies with rapid tapering schemes the risk of withdrawal symptoms may be similar to studies using abrupt discontinuation which may influence the effectiveness of the interventions. Nearly all data come from people with recurrent depression.   There is an urgent need for trials that adequately address withdrawal confounding bias, and carefully distinguish relapse from withdrawal symptoms. Future studies should report key outcomes such as successful discontinuation rate and should include populations with one or no prior depression episodes in primary care, older people, and people taking antidepressants for anxiety and use tapering schemes longer than 4 weeks.

The Active Brains Digital Intervention to Reduce Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: Protocol for a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Increasing physical activity, improving diet, and performing brain training exercises are associated with reduced cognitive decline in older adults.

OBJECTIVE

In this paper, we describe a feasibility trial of the Active Brains intervention, a web-based digital intervention developed to support older adults to make these 3 healthy behavior changes associated with improved cognitive health. The Active Brains trial is a randomized feasibility trial that will test how accessible, acceptable, and feasible the Active Brains intervention is and the effectiveness of the study procedures that we intend to use in the larger, main trial.

METHODS

In the randomized controlled trial (RCT), we use a parallel design. We will be conducting the intervention with 2 populations recruited through GP practices (family practices) in England from 2018 to 2019: older adults with signs of cognitive decline and older adults without any cognitive decline. Trial participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 study groups: usual care, the Active Brains intervention, or the Active Brains website plus brief support from a trained coach (over the phone or by email). The main outcomes are performance on cognitive tasks, quality of life (using EuroQol-5D 5 level), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, and diagnoses of dementia. Secondary outcomes (including depression, enablement, and health care costs) and process measures (including qualitative interviews with participants and supporters) will also be collected. The trial has been approved by the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (reference 17/SC/0463).

RESULTS

Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences, and shared at public engagement events. Data collection was completed in May 2020, and the results will be reported in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study will help us to identify and make important changes to the website, the support received, or the study procedures before we progress to our main randomized phase III trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number 23758980; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN23758980.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/18929.

Strategies to reduce use of antidepressants

Antidepressant prescribing has increased year on year since the introduction of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the 1980s. More than 10% of adults in England are now taking antidepressants for depression/anxiety, with a median length of treatment of more than 2 years, but antidepressants can cause side effects and withdrawal symptoms which increase with longer use. Surveys of antidepressant users suggest 30-50% have no evidence-based indication to continue, but coming off antidepressants is often difficult due to fears of relapse, withdrawal symptoms and a lack of psychological treatments to replace maintenance treatment and prevent relapse. GPs should not prescribe antidepressants routinely for mild depressive/anxiety symptoms. Patients starting antidepressants should be advised that they are to be taken for a limited period only, and that there is a risk of withdrawal problems on stopping them. Prescribers should actively review long-term antidepressant use and suggest coming off them slowly to patients who are well. The relationship between SSRI dose and serotonin transporter receptor occupancy suggests that hyperbolic tapering regimes may be helpful for patients with troubling withdrawal symptoms who cannot stop treatment within 4-8 weeks, and tapering strips can allow carefully titrated slower dose reduction over some months. Internet and telephone support to patients wanting to reduce their antidepressants is being trialled in the REDUCE programme. More research is needed to establish the incidence of withdrawal symptoms in representative samples of patients coming off antidepressants, and large randomised controlled trials are needed to test different tapering strategies.

The association between primary care quality and health-care use, costs and outcomes for people with serious mental illness: a retrospective observational study

Background

Serious mental illness, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychoses, is linked with high disease burden, poor outcomes, high treatment costs and lower life expectancy. In the UK, most people with serious mental illness are treated in primary care by general practitioners, who are financially incentivised to meet quality targets for patients with chronic conditions, including serious mental illness, under the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The Quality and Outcomes Framework, however, omits important aspects of quality.

Objectives

We examined whether or not better quality of primary care for people with serious mental illness improved a range of outcomes.

Design and setting

We used administrative data from English primary care practices that contribute to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database, linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, accident and emergency attendances, Office for National Statistics mortality data and community mental health records in the Mental Health Minimum Data Set. We used survival analysis to estimate whether or not selected quality indicators affect the time until patients experience an outcome.

Participants

Four cohorts of people with serious mental illness, depending on the outcomes examined and inclusion criteria.

Interventions

Quality of care was measured with (1) Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators (care plans and annual physical reviews) and (2) non-Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators identified through a systematic review (antipsychotic polypharmacy and continuity of care provided by general practitioners).

Main outcome measures

Several outcomes were examined: emergency admissions for serious mental illness and ambulatory care sensitive conditions; all unplanned admissions; accident and emergency attendances; mortality; re-entry into specialist mental health services; and costs attributed to primary, secondary and community mental health care.

Results

Care plans were associated with lower risk of accident and emergency attendance (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.80), serious mental illness admission (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.75), ambulatory care sensitive condition admission (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.83), and lower overall health-care (£53), primary care (£9), hospital (£26) and mental health-care costs (£12). Annual reviews were associated with reduced risk of accident and emergency attendance (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.85), serious mental illness admission (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.84), ambulatory care sensitive condition admission (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.87), and lower overall health-care (£34), primary care (£9) and mental health-care costs (£30). Higher general practitioner continuity was associated with lower risk of accident and emergency presentation (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.97) and ambulatory care sensitive condition admission (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.92), but not with serious mental illness admission. High continuity was associated with lower primary care costs (£3). Antipsychotic polypharmacy was not statistically significantly associated with the risk of unplanned admission, death or accident and emergency presentation. None of the quality measures was statistically significantly associated with risk of re-entry into specialist mental health care.

Limitations

There is risk of bias from unobserved factors. To mitigate this, we controlled for observed patient characteristics at baseline and adjusted for the influence of time-invariant unobserved patient differences.

Conclusions

Better performance on Quality and Outcomes Framework measures and continuity of care are associated with better outcomes and lower resource utilisation, and could generate moderate cost savings.

Future work

Future research should examine the impact of primary care quality on measures that capture broader aspects of health and functioning.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression (PROMDEP): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Benefits to patients from reduced depression have been shown from monitoring progress with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in psychological therapy and mental health settings. This approach has not yet been researched in the United Kingdom for primary care, which is where most people with depression are treated in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

This is a parallel-group cluster randomised trial with 1:1 allocation to intervention and control. Patients who are age 18+ years, with a new episode of depressive disorder/symptoms, meet the inclusion criteria. Patients with current depression treatment, comorbid dementia/psychosis/substance misuse/suicidal ideas are excluded. The intervention includes the Administration of Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) as a PROM within 2 weeks of diagnosis and at follow-up 4 weeks later. General practitioners are trained in interpreting scores and asked to take them into account in their treatment decisions. Patients are given written feedback on scores and suggested treatments. The primary outcome measure is Depression on the Beck Depression Inventory BDI-II at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include BDI-II at 26 weeks, changes in drug treatments and referrals, social functioning (Work & Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EQ-5D) at 12 and 26 weeks, service use over 26 weeks (modified Client Services Receipt Inventory) to calculate NHS costs, and patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale). The sample includes 676 total participants from 113 practices across three centres. Randomisation is achieved by computerised sequence generation. Blinding is impossible given the nature of the intervention (self-report outcome measures prevent rating bias). Differences at 12 and 26 weeks between intervention and controls in depression, social functioning and quality of life are analysed using linear mixed models, adjusted for socio-demographics, baseline depression, anxiety, and clustering, while including practice as a random effect. Patient satisfaction, quality of life (QALYs) and costs over 26 weeks will be compared between arms. Qualitative process analysis includes interviews with 15-20 GP/NPs and 15-20 patients per arm to reflect trial results and implementation issues, using Normalization Process Theory as a theoretical framework.

DISCUSSION

If PROMs are helpful in improving patient outcomes for depression even to a small extent, then they are likely to be good value for money, given their low cost. The benefits could be considerable, given that depression is common, disabling, and costly.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN no: 17299295. Registered 1st October 2018.

REDUCE (Reviewing long-term antidepressant use by careful monitoring in everyday practice) internet and telephone support to people coming off long-term antidepressants: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Around one in ten adults take antidepressants for depression in England, and their long-term use is increasing. Some need them to prevent relapse, but 30-50% could possibly stop them without relapsing and avoid adverse effects and complications of long-term use. However, stopping is not always easy due to withdrawal symptoms and a fear of relapse of depression. When general practitioners review patients on long-term antidepressants and recommend to those who are suitable to stop the medication, only 6-8% are able to stop. The Reviewing long-term antidepressant use by careful monitoring in everyday practice (REDUCE) research programme aims to identify safe and cost-effective ways of helping patients taking long-term antidepressants taper off treatment when appropriate.

METHODS

Design: REDUCE is a two-arm, 1:1 parallel group randomised controlled trial, with randomisation clustered by participating family practices.

SETTING

England and north Wales.

POPULATION

patients taking antidepressants for longer than 1 year for a first episode of depression or longer than 2 years for repeated episodes of depression who are no longer depressed and want to try to taper off their antidepressant use.

INTERVENTION

provision of 'ADvisor' internet programmes to general practitioners or nurse practitioners and to patients designed to support antidepressant withdrawal, plus three patient telephone calls from a psychological wellbeing practitioner. The control arm receives usual care. Blinding of patients, practitioners and researchers is not possible in an open pragmatic trial, but statistical and health economic data analysts will remain blind to allocation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

the primary outcome is self-reported nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire at 6 months for depressive symptoms.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

depressive symptoms at other follow-up time points, anxiety, discontinuation of antidepressants, social functioning, wellbeing, enablement, quality of life, satisfaction, and use of health services for costs.

SAMPLE SIZE

402 patients (201 intervention and 201 controls) from 134 general practices recruited over 15-18 months, and followed-up at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. A qualitative process evaluation will be conducted through interviews with 15-20 patients and 15-20 practitioners in each arm to explore why the interventions were effective or not, depending on the results.

DISCUSSION

Helping patients reduce and stop antidepressants is often challenging for practitioners and time-consuming for very busy primary care practices. If REDUCE provides evidence showing that access to internet and telephone support enables more patients to stop treatment without increasing depression we will try to implement the intervention throughout the National Health Service, publishing practical guidance for professionals and advice for patients to follow, publicised through patient support groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN:12417565. Registered on 7 October 2019.

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

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).

Supporting antidepressant discontinuation: the development and optimisation of a digital intervention for patients in UK primary care using a theory, evidence and person-based approach

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to develop a digital intervention to support antidepressant discontinuation in UK primary care that is scalable, accessible, safe and feasible. In this paper, we describe the development using a theory, evidence and person-based approach.

DESIGN

Intervention development using a theory, evidence and person-based approach.

SETTING

Primary Care in the South of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifteen participants with a range of antidepressant experience took part in 'think aloud' interviews for intervention optimisation.

INTERVENTION

Our digital intervention prototype (called 'ADvisor') was developed on the basis of a planning phase consisting of qualitative and quantitative reviews, an in-depth qualitative study, the development of guiding principles and a theory-based behavioural analysis. Our optimisation phase consisted of 'think aloud' interviews where the intervention was iteratively refined.

RESULTS

The qualitative systematic review and in-depth qualitative study highlighted the centrality of fear of depression relapse as a key barrier to discontinuation. The quantitative systematic review showed that psychologically informed approaches such as cognitive-behavioural therapy were associated with greater rates of discontinuation than simple advice to reduce. Following a behavioural diagnosis based on the behaviour change wheel, social cognitive theory provided a theoretical basis for the intervention. The intervention was optimised on the basis of think aloud interviews, where participants suggested they like the flexibility of the system and found it reassuring. Changes were made to the tone of the material and the structure was adjusted based on this qualitative feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

'ADvisor' is a theory, evidence and person-based digital intervention designed to support antidepressant discontinuation. The intervention was perceived as helpful and reassuring in optimisation interviews. Trials are now needed to determine the feasibility, clinical and cost-effectiveness of this approach.

'I mean what is depression?' A qualitative exploration of UK general practitioners' perceptions of distinctions between emotional distress and depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

Detection of depression is a key part of primary mental healthcare. However, determining whether depressive disorder is or is not present in primary care patients is complex. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore general practitioners' (GPs) perceptions of distinctions between emotional distress and depressive disorder.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

SETTING

Face-to-face and telephone interviews with GPs from the South of England.

PARTICIPANTS

GPs working in UK primary care practices (n=21).

METHOD

Interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide, were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Views were divergent when directly considering whether emotional distress could be distinguished from depressive disorder. Some GPs suggested a distinction was not possible as symptoms lay on a continuum, with severity as a proxy for disorder. Others focused on the difficulty of the distinction and were uncertain. Some GPs perceived a distinction and referred to emotional distress as more likely in the presence of a stressor with the absence of biological symptoms. It was also common for GPs to refer to endogenous and reactive depression when considering possible distinctions between distress and depressive disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs' perceptions of when emotional symptoms reflect disorder varied greatly, with a broad range of views presented. Further research is needed to develop more consistent frameworks for understanding emotional symptoms in primary care.

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.

The clinical effectiveness of sertraline in primary care and the role of depression severity and duration (PANDA): a pragmatic, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Depression is usually managed in primary care, but most antidepressant trials are of patients from secondary care mental health services, with eligibility criteria based on diagnosis and severity of depressive symptoms. Antidepressants are now used in a much wider group of people than in previous regulatory trials. We investigated the clinical effectiveness of sertraline in patients in primary care with depressive symptoms ranging from mild to severe and tested the role of severity and duration in treatment response.

METHODS

The PANDA study was a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial of patients from 179 primary care surgeries in four UK cities (Bristol, Liverpool, London, and York). We included patients aged 18 to 74 years who had depressive symptoms of any severity or duration in the past 2 years, where there was clinical uncertainty about the benefit of an antidepressant. This strategy was designed to improve the generalisability of our sample to current use of antidepressants within primary care. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a remote computer-generated code to sertraline or placebo, and were stratified by severity, duration, and site with random block length. Patients received one capsule (sertraline 50 mg or placebo orally) daily for one week then two capsules daily for up to 11 weeks, consistent with evidence on optimal dosages for efficacy and acceptability. The primary outcome was depressive symptoms 6 weeks after randomisation, measured by Patient Health Questionnaire, 9-item version (PHQ-9) scores. Secondary outcomes at 2, 6 and 12 weeks were depressive symptoms and remission (PHQ-9 and Beck Depression Inventory-II), generalised anxiety symptoms (Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment 7-item version), mental and physical health-related quality of life (12-item Short-Form Health Survey), and self-reported improvement. All analyses compared groups as randomised (intention-to-treat). The study is registered with EudraCT, 2013-003440-22 (protocol number 13/0413; version 6.1) and ISRCTN, ISRCTN84544741, and is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 1, 2015, and Aug 31, 2017, we recruited and randomly assigned 655 patients-326 (50%) to sertraline and 329 (50%) to placebo. Two patients in the sertraline group did not complete a substantial proportion of the baseline assessment and were excluded, leaving 653 patients in total. Due to attrition, primary outcome analyses were of 550 patients (266 in the sertraline group and 284 in the placebo group; 85% follow-up that did not differ by treatment allocation). We found no evidence that sertraline led to a clinically meaningful reduction in depressive symptoms at 6 weeks. The mean 6-week PHQ-9 score was 7·98 (SD 5·63) in the sertraline group and 8·76 (5·86) in the placebo group (adjusted proportional difference 0·95, 95% CI 0·85-1·07; p=0·41). However, for secondary outcomes, we found evidence that sertraline led to reduced anxiety symptoms, better mental (but not physical) health-related quality of life, and self-reported improvements in mental health. We observed weak evidence that depressive symptoms were reduced by sertraline at 12 weeks. We recorded seven adverse events-four for sertraline and three for placebo, and adverse events did not differ by treatment allocation. Three adverse events were classified as serious-two in the sertraline group and one in the placebo group. One serious adverse event in the sertraline group was classified as possibly related to study medication.

INTERPRETATION

Sertraline is unlikely to reduce depressive symptoms within 6 weeks in primary care but we observed improvements in anxiety, quality of life, and self-rated mental health, which are likely to be clinically important. Our findings support the prescription of SSRI antidepressants in a wider group of participants than previously thought, including those with mild to moderate symptoms who do not meet diagnostic criteria for depression or generalised anxiety disorder.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research.

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

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).

Impact of family practice continuity of care on unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness

Objective

To investigate whether continuity of care in family practice reduces unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness (SMI).

Data Sources

Linked administrative data on family practice and hospital utilization by people with SMI in England, 2007‐2014.

Study Design

This observational cohort study used discrete‐time survival analysis to investigate the relationship between continuity of care in family practice and unplanned hospital use: emergency department (ED) presentations, and unplanned admissions for SMI and ambulatory care‐sensitive conditions (ACSC). The analysis distinguishes between relational continuity and management/ informational continuity (as captured by care plans) and accounts for unobserved confounding by examining deviation from long‐term averages.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

Individual‐level family practice administrative data linked to hospital administrative data.

Principal Findings

Higher relational continuity was associated with 8‐11 percent lower risk of ED presentation and 23‐27 percent lower risk of ACSC admissions. Care plans were associated with 29 percent lower risk of ED presentation, 39 percent lower risk of SMI admissions, and 32 percent lower risk of ACSC admissions.

Conclusions

Family practice continuity of care can reduce unplanned hospital use for physical and mental health of people with SMI.

Association Between Antipsychotic Polypharmacy and Outcomes for People With Serious Mental Illness in England

OBJECTIVE

Although U.K. and international guidelines recommend monotherapy, antipsychotic polypharmacy among patients with serious mental illness is common in clinical practice. However, empirical evidence on its effectiveness is scarce. Therefore, the authors estimated the effectiveness of antipsychotic polypharmacy relative to monotherapy in terms of health care utilization and mortality.

METHODS

Primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink, hospital data from Hospital Episode Statistics, and mortality data from the Office of National Statistics were linked to compile a cohort of patients with serious mental illness in England from 2000 to 2014. The antipsychotic prescribing profile of 17,255 adults who had at least one antipsychotic drug record during the period of observation was constructed from primary care medication records. Survival analysis models were estimated to identify the effect of antipsychotic polypharmacy on the time to first occurrence of each of three outcomes: unplanned hospital admissions (all cause), emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality.

RESULTS

Relative to monotherapy, antipsychotic polypharmacy was not associated with increased risk of unplanned hospital admission (hazard ratio [HR]=1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.98-1.32), ED visit (HR=0.95; 95% CI=0.80-1.14), or death (HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.76-1.37). Relative to not receiving antipsychotic medication, monotherapy was associated with a reduced hazard of unplanned admissions to the hospital and ED visits, but it had no effect on mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results support current guidelines for antipsychotic monotherapy in routine clinical practice. However, they also suggest that when clinicians have deemed antipsychotic polypharmacy necessary, health care utilization and mortality are not affected.

Helping people discontinue long-term antidepressants: views of health professionals in UK primary care

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this paper were to identify, characterise and explain clinician factors that shape decision-making around antidepressant discontinuation in UK primary care.

DESIGN

Four focus groups and three interviews were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-one general practitioners (GPs), four GP assistants, seven nurses and six community mental health team workers and psychotherapists took part in focus groups and interviews.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from seven primary care regions and two National Health Service Trusts providing community mental health services in the South of England.

RESULTS

Participants highlighted a number of barriers and enablers to discussing discontinuation with patients. They held a range of views around responsibility, with some suggesting it was the responsibility of the health professional (HP) to broach the subject, and others suggesting responsibility rested with the patients. HPs were concerned about destabilising the current situation, discussed how continuity and knowing the patient facilitated discontinuation talks, and discussed how confidence in their professional skills and knowledge affected whether they elected to raise discontinuation in consultations.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate a need to consider support for HPs in the management of antidepressant medication and discussions of discontinuation in particular. They may also benefit from support around their fears of patient relapse and awareness of when and how to initiate discussions about discontinuation with their patients.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3390-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

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 13 RCTs were found to meet inclusion criteria. The Dep-GP database was formed from the 6271 participants. This protocol outlines how these data will be analysed. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019129512 (01/04/2019).

Barriers and facilitators to discontinuing antidepressant use: A systematic review and thematic synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To explore patient and health professional views and experiences of antidepressant treatment with particular focus on barriers and facilitators to discontinuing use.

DESIGN

Systematic review with thematic synthesis DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, Health Management Information Consortium, OpenGrey, and the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations from inception until February 2017. Updated searches were carried out in July 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Primary studies, published in English, that used qualitative data collection and analysis, and had data on attitudes, beliefs, feelings, perceptions on continuing or discontinuing antidepressant use, of patients (aged 18 or above, who received treatment with antidepressants for at least 6 months) or any health professionals.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer extracted data and assessed study quality, which was checked by a second reviewer.

FINDINGS

Twenty two papers were included in the review. A thematic synthesis was performed for patient perspectives only, due to insufficient data from a health professional perspective. The thematic synthesis yielded nine themes: (1) psychological and physical capabilities; (2) perception of antidepressants; (3) fears; (4) intrinsic motivators and goals; (5) the Doctor as a navigator to maintenance or discontinuation; (6) perceived cause of depression; (7) aspects of information that support decision-making; (8) significant others - a help or a hindrance; and (9) support from other health professionals.

LIMITATIONS

Coding and development of subthemes and themes was performed by one researcher and further developed through discussion between two researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers and facilitators to discontinuing antidepressant use are numerous and complex, and likely to require detailed conversations between patients and their general practitioners (GPs). These conversations are more likely to happen if GPs raise the issue of discontinuation. Further research from a health professional perspective including, but not limited to GPs, is needed.

Managing Antidepressant Discontinuation: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine the effectiveness of interventions to manage antidepressant discontinuation, and the outcomes for patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of studies published to March 2017. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, or observational studies assessing interventions to facilitate discontinuation of antidepressants for depression in adults. Our primary outcomes were antidepressant discontinuation and discontinuation symptoms. Secondary outcomes were relapse/recurrence; quality of life; antidepressant reduction; and sexual, social, and occupational function.

RESULTS

Of 15 included studies, 12 studies (8 randomized controlled trials, 2 single-arm trials, 2 retrospective cohort studies) were included in the synthesis. None were rated as having high risk for selection or detection bias. Two studies prompting primary care clinician discontinuation with antidepressant tapering guidance found 6% and 7% of patients discontinued, vs 8% for usual care. Six studies of psychological or psychiatric treatment plus tapering reported cessation rates of 40% to 95%. Two studies reported a higher risk of discontinuation symptoms with abrupt termination. At 2 years, risk of relapse/recurrence was lower with cognitive behavioral therapy plus taper vs clinical management plus taper (15% to 25% vs 35% to 80%: risk ratio = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18-0.67; 2 studies). Relapse/recurrence rates were similar for mindfulness-based cognitive therapy with tapering and maintenance antidepressants (44% to 48% vs 47% to 60%; 2 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive behavioral therapy or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy can help patients discontinue antidepressants without increasing the risk of relapse/recurrence, but are resource intensive. More scalable interventions incorporating psychological support are needed.

Do care plans and annual reviews of physical health influence unplanned hospital utilisation for people with serious mental illness? Analysis of linked longitudinal primary and secondary healthcare records in England

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether two primary care activities that are framed as indicators of primary care quality (comprehensive care plans and annual reviews of physical health) influence unplanned utilisation of hospital services for people with serious mental illness (SMI).

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective observational cohort study using linked primary care and hospital records (Hospital Episode Statistics) for 5158 patients diagnosed with SMI between April 2006 and March 2014, who attended 213 primary care practices in England that contribute to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database.

OUTCOMES AND ANALYSIS

Cox survival models were used to estimate the associations between two primary care quality indicators (care plans and annual reviews of physical health) and the hazards of three types of unplanned hospital utilisation: presentation to accident and emergency departments (A&E), admission for SMI and admission for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC).

RESULTS

Risk of A&E presentation was 13% lower (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98) and risk of admission to hospital for ACSC was 23% lower (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99) for patients with a care plan documented in the previous year compared with those without a care plan. Risk of A&E presentation was 19% lower for those who had a care plan documented earlier but not updated in the previous year (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97) compared with those without a care plan. Risks of hospital admission for SMI were not associated with care plans, and none of the outcomes were associated with annual reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Care plans documented in primary care for people with SMI are associated with reduced risk of A&E attendance and reduced risk of unplanned admission to hospital for physical health problems, but not with risk of admission for mental health problems. Annual reviews of physical health are not associated with risk of unplanned hospital utilisation.

Independent determinants of disease-related quality of life in COPD - scope for nonpharmacologic interventions?

Purpose

Quality-of-life (QoL) scores in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have a weak relationship with physiologic impairment. We investigated factors associated with poor QoL, focusing on psychological measures potentially amenable to intervention.

Patients and methods

We utilized a pre-existing Birmingham (UK) COPD cohort to assess factors associated with QoL impairment (COPD Assessment Test [CAT] scores). Univariate and multivariate regression models were constructed from three categories of variables: demographic, lung function/COPD-related symptoms, and psychosocial/behavioral factors.

Results

Analyses were based on self-report questionnaire data from 735 participants. The multivariate model of variables independently associated with CAT included depression, dysfunctional breathing symptoms (Nijmegen score), and illness perception, in addition to COPD symptoms (wheeze, cough), exercise capacity, breathlessness, exacerbations, and deprivation; this model explained 72% of CAT score variation. In a dominance analysis assessing the relative contribution of variables, similar contributions were made by breathlessness (20.2%), illness perception (19.8%), dysfunctional breathing symptoms (17.5%), and depression (12.5%) with other variables contributing <5%.

Conclusion

Psychological factors significantly contribute to disease-specific QoL impairment in COPD, and potentially explain the mismatch between objective physiologic impairment and patients’ experience of their disease. Interventions targeting psychological factors, illness perception, and dysfunctional breathing should be assessed.