Evaluation of the online-based self-help programme "Selfapy" in patients with unipolar depression: study protocol for a randomized, blinded parallel group dismantling study

Evaluating the Efficacy of a Digital Therapeutic (CT-152) as an Adjunct to Antidepressant Treatment in Adults With Major Depressive Disorder: Protocol for the MIRAI Remote Study

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is common worldwide and can be highly disabling. People with MDD face many barriers to treatment and may not experience full symptom relief even when treated. Therefore, new treatment modalities are needed for MDD. Digital therapeutics (DTx) may provide people with MDD an additional treatment option.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe a phase 3 remote, multicenter, randomized, masked, sham-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of a smartphone app-based DTx (CT-152) in adult participants diagnosed with MDD, used as an adjunct to antidepressant therapy (ADT).

METHODS

Participants aged 22-64 years with a current primary diagnosis of MDD and an inadequate response to ADT were included. Participants were randomized 1:1 to CT-152 or a sham DTx. CT-152 is a smartphone app-based DTx that delivers a cognitive-emotional and behavioral therapeutic intervention. The core components of CT-152 are the Emotional Faces Memory Task exercises, brief lessons to learn and apply key therapeutic skills, and SMS text messaging to reinforce lessons and encourage engagement with the app. The sham DTx is a digital working memory exercise with emotionally neutral stimuli designed to match CT-152 for time and attention. Participants took part in the trial for up to 13 weeks. The trial included a screening period of up to 3 weeks, a treatment period of 6 weeks, and an extension period of 4 weeks to assess the durability of the effect. Sites and participants had the option of an in-person or remote screening visit; the remaining trial visits were remote. Efficacy was evaluated using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. The durability of the effect was evaluated with the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale. Adverse events were also assessed. Satisfaction, measured by the Participant and Healthcare Professional Satisfaction Scales, and health status, measured by the EQ-5D-5L, were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

This study was initiated in February 2021 and had a primary completion date in October 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

This represents the methodological design for the first evaluation of CT-152 as an adjunct to ADT. This study protocol is methodologically robust and incorporates many aspects of conventional pivotal pharmaceutical phase 3 trial design, such as randomization and safety end points. Novel considerations included the use of a sham comparator, masking considerations for visible app content, and outcome measures relevant to DTx. The rigor of this methodology will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of CT-152.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04770285; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04770285.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/56960.

Evaluation of the internet-based intervention "Selfapy" in participants with unipolar depression and the impact on quality of life: a randomized, parallel group study

PURPOSE

Depressive disorders cause a major burden of disease worldwide and often lead to a loss of social functioning. Patients suffering from depressive disorders report a lower quality of life (QOL) than people without a history of mental health issues. Internet-based interventions (IBIs) based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) are effective in reducing symptom severity but data on their impact on quality of life in clinically depressed patients so far is scarce.

METHODS

Selfapy is a CBT-based IBI for depressive disorders. 401 participants (332 female, mean age 37 (SD = 11) with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) or dysthymia were enrolled in a randomized, parallel, three-arm trial comparing a therapist-guided Selfapy intervention with an unguided Selfapy intervention and a waiting list control. QOL was measured using the WHOQOL-BREF at baseline, post-treatment (12 weeks) and at 24-week follow-up. The effects of the interventions on QOL were calculated using linear mixed effects models.

RESULTS

At post-treatment (12 weeks) the guided and unguided intervention groups reported an increase in QOL on physical and psychological health domains compared to controls (significant group*time interaction). The gain in QOL was maintained over the follow-up period only for psychological health. QOL decreased in the social relationships and environment domains over the course of treatment and during the follow-up treatment for all participants. There were no differences between the guided and the unguided intervention.

CONCLUSION

Selfapy proved to positively affect psychological and physical QOL in a sample of participants suffering from depressive disorders and can therefore be considered an effective and highly scalable therapeutic tool. The pattern of results might partly be attributable to effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and public health measures that coincided with the trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00017191. Registered June 14th, 2019, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00017191 .

Race, Ethnicity, and Other Cultural Background Factors in Trials of Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There is a growing interest in developing scalable interventions, including internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT), to meet the increasing demand for mental health services. Given the growth in diversity worldwide, it is essential that the clinical trials of iCBT for depression include diverse samples or, at least, report information on the race, ethnicity, or other background indicators of their samples. Unfortunately, the field lacks data on how well diversity is currently reported and represented in the iCBT literature.

OBJECTIVE

Thus, the main objective of this systematic review was to examine the overall reporting of racial and ethnic identities in published clinical trials of iCBT for depression. We also aimed to review the representation of specific racial and ethnic minoritized groups and the inclusion of alternative background indicators such as migration status or country of residence.

METHODS

Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials in which iCBT was compared to a waiting list, care-as-usual, active control, or another iCBT. The included papers also had to have a focus on acute treatment (eg, 4 weeks to 6 months) of depression, be delivered via the internet on a website or a smartphone app and use guided or unguided self-help. Studies were initially identified from the METAPSY database (n=59) and then extended to include papers up to 2022, with papers retrieved from Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane (n=3). Risk of bias assessment suggested that reported studies had at least some risk of bias due to use of self-report outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 62 iCBT randomized controlled trials representing 17,210 participants are summarized in this study. Out of those 62 papers, only 17 (27%) of the trials reported race, and only 12 (19%) reported ethnicity. Reporting outside of the United States was very poor, with the United States accounting for 15 (88%) out of 17 of studies that reported race and 9 (75%) out of 12 for ethnicity. Out of 3,623 participants whose race was reported in the systematic review, the racial category reported the most was White (n=2716, 74.9%), followed by Asian (n=209, 5.8%) and Black (n=274, 7.6%). Furthermore, only 25 (54%) out of the 46 papers conducted outside of the United States reported other background demographics.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to note that the underreporting observed in this study does not necessarily indicate an underrepresentation in the actual study population. However, these findings highlight the poor reporting of race and ethnicity in iCBT trials for depression found in the literature. This lack of diversity reporting may have significant implications for the scalability of these interventions.

Assessing Patient Adherence to and Engagement With Digital Interventions for Depression in Clinical Trials: Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

New approaches to the treatment of depression are necessary for patients who do not respond to current treatments or lack access to them because of barriers such as cost, stigma, and provider shortage. Digital interventions for depression are promising; however, low patient engagement could limit their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review (SLR) assessed how participant adherence to and engagement with digital interventions for depression have been measured in the published literature, what levels of adherence and engagement have been reported, and whether higher adherence and increased engagement are linked to increased efficacy.

METHODS

We focused on a participant population of adults (aged ≥18 years) with depression or major depressive disorder as the primary diagnosis and included clinical trials, feasibility studies, and pilot studies of digital interventions for treating depression, such as digital therapeutics. We screened 756 unique records from Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane published between January 1, 2000, and April 15, 2022; extracted data from and appraised the 94 studies meeting the inclusion criteria; and performed a primarily descriptive analysis. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc (Princeton, New Jersey, United States) funded this study.

RESULTS

This SLR encompassed results from 20,111 participants in studies using 47 unique web-based interventions (an additional 10 web-based interventions were not described by name), 15 mobile app interventions, 5 app-based interventions that are also accessible via the web, and 1 CD-ROM. Adherence was most often measured as the percentage of participants who completed all available modules. Less than half (44.2%) of the participants completed all the modules; however, the average dose received was 60.7% of the available modules. Although engagement with digital interventions was measured differently in different studies, it was most commonly measured as the number of modules completed, the mean of which was 6.4 (means ranged from 1.0 to 19.7) modules. The mean amount of time participants engaged with the interventions was 3.9 (means ranged from 0.7 to 8.4) hours. Most studies of web-based (34/45, 76%) and app-based (8/9, 89%) interventions found that the intervention group had substantially greater improvement for at least 1 outcome than the control group (eg, care as usual, waitlist, or active control). Of the 14 studies that investigated the relationship between engagement and efficacy, 9 (64%) found that increased engagement with digital interventions was significantly associated with improved participant outcomes. The limitations of this SLR include publication bias, which may overstate engagement and efficacy, and low participant diversity, which reduces the generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient adherence to and engagement with digital interventions for depression have been reported in the literature using various metrics. Arriving at more standardized ways of reporting adherence and engagement would enable more effective comparisons across different digital interventions, studies, and populations.

Evidence requirements of permanently listed digital health applications (DiGA) and their implementation in the German DiGA directory: an analysis

BACKGROUND

With its digital health application (DiGA)-system, Germany is considered one of Europe's pioneers in the field of evidence-based digital health. Incorporating DiGA into standard medical care must be based on evidence-based success factors; however, a comprehensive overview of the evidence required of scientific studies for their approval is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to, (1) identify specific requirements defined by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (German: Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel- und Medizinprodukte; BfArM) to design adequate studies, proving a positive healthcare effect, and (2) to assess the evidence given for applications permanently listed in the DiGA directory.

METHODS

A multi-step approach was used: (1) identification of the evidence requirements for applications permanently listed in the DiGA directory, (2) identification of the evidence available supporting them.

RESULTS

All DiGA permanently listed in the DiGA directory (13 applications) are included in the formal analysis. Most DiGA addressed mental health (n = 7), and can be prescribed for one or two indications (n = 10). All permanently listed DiGA have demonstrated their positive healthcare effect through a medical benefit, and most of them provide evidence for one defined primary endpoint. All DiGA manufacturers conducted a randomized controlled trial.

DISCUSSION

It is striking that- although patient-relevant structural and procedural improvements show high potential for improving care, especially in terms of processes - all DiGA have provided a positive care effect via a medical benefit. Although BfArM accepts study designs with a lower level of evidence for the proof of a positive healthcare effect, all manufacturers conducted a study with a high level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

The results of this analysis indicate that permanently listed DiGA meet higher standards than required by the guideline.

Investigating information needs and preferences regarding digital mental health services among medical and psychology students in Germany: A qualitative study

Background

Since 2020, physicians and psychotherapists in Germany can prescribe digital mental health services (dMHSs). However, even future healthcare professionals (HCPs), such as medical and psychology students, remain reluctant to use dMHSs, although they are a risk group for mental health issues themselves. Reasons include scepticism and lacking awareness of dMHSs, which can be addressed by acceptance-facilitating interventions (AFIs) such as information strategies. To date, though, little is known about their information needs.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with n = 21 students were conducted between August and September 2021. Students of legal age studying psychology or medicine at a German university could participate. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and content-analyzed according to Mayring, using deductive and inductive coding.

Results

Most students reported having little experience with dMHSs. Digital health has barely been raised in their study, even though it was perceived as crucial for personal needs as well as in preparation for their work as HCPs. Students favoured receiving information on and recommendations for dMHSs from their university via, e.g. social media or seminars. Among others, information about data safety, scientific evidence base and application scope were preferred. Additionally, information on costs as well as user reviews seemed to be essential components of information strategies because students were concerned that high costs or low usability would hinder uptake.

Conclusions

The results give first insights on how future HCPs would like to be informed on dMHSs. Future research should focus on systematic variations of AFIs' components mimicking real-world decision scenarios to increase the adoption of dMHSs.

Acceptance of E-Mental Health Services for Different Application Purposes Among Psychotherapists in Clinical Training in Germany and Switzerland: Secondary Analysis of a Cross-Sectional Survey

Background

Despite solid evidence supporting the efficacy of electronic mental health (EMH) services, their acceptance among psychotherapists is limited and uptake rates remain low. However, the acceptance of different EMH services has yet barely been examined in future generations of psychotherapists in a differentiated manner. The aims of this study were (1) to elaborate the intention to use various EMH services for different application purposes and (2) to determine predictors of EMH service acceptance among psychotherapists in clinical training (PiT).

Materials and Methods

Our paper is based on a secondary data analysis of a cross-sectional survey. Respondents were recruited via recognized educational institutions for psychotherapy within Germany and the German-speaking part of Switzerland between June and July of 2020. The survey contained items on the intention to use different EMH services (i.e., guided and unguided programs, virtual reality, psychotherapy by telephone and videoconference) for various application purposes (i.e., prevention, treatment addition, treatment substitute, aftercare). Potential predictors of EMH service acceptance (e.g., barriers and advantages) were examined based on an extension of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT).

Results

Most of the n = 216 respondents were female (88.4%) and located in Germany (72.2%). General acceptance of EMH was moderate (M = 3.4, SD = 1.12, range 1-5), while acceptance of psychotherapy via videoconference was highest (M = 3.7, SD = 1.15) and acceptance of unguided programs was lowest (M = 2.55, SD = 1.14). There was an interaction effect of EMH service and application purpose (η2 = 0.21). Barriers and advantages both had a uniform influence on EMH service acceptance (Pr > 0.999), while impersonality, legal concerns, concerns about therapeutic alliance, simplified information provision, simplified contact maintenance, time flexibility, and geographic flexibility were significant predictors (all p < 0.05). Results showed that the extended UTAUT model was the best fitting model to predict EMH service acceptance (Pr > 0.999).

Conclusions

The intention to use different EMH services varied between application purposes among PiT. To increase acceptance of EMH services and reduce misconceptions, we identified predictors that should be addressed in future acceptance-facilitating interventions when educating PiT.

Efficacy of an online intervention for treatment of depressive disorders: a three-arm randomized controlled trial comparing guided and unguided self-help with waitlist control (Preprint)

Background

Digital health apps are efficacious treatment options for mild-to-moderate depressive disorders. However, the extent to which psychological guidance increases the efficacy of these apps is controversial.

Objective

We evaluated the efficacy of a web-based intervention, called Selfapy, for unipolar depression. We also investigated differences between psychotherapist-guided and unguided versions.

Methods

Selfapy is a cognitive behavioral therapy–based intervention for depressive disorders. Participants with mild-to-severe depressive disorders were assigned randomly to participate in either guided (weekly 25-minute duration telephone calls) intervention, unguided version, or waiting list (control group) for 12 weeks. We assessed depressive symptoms at the start of the study, midway through the intervention (6 weeks), at the end of the intervention (12 weeks), and at follow-up (6 months). The main outcome was difference in the Beck Depression Inventory score between the start of the study and the end of the intervention. Secondary outcomes were the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology—Self Report, the Hamilton Rating Depression Scale, and the Beck Anxiety Inventory.

Results

Of 401 participants, 301 participants (75.1%) completed the intervention. Changes in the Beck Depression Inventory from baseline differed significantly between groups at the postintervention (F_2,398=37.20, P<.001). The reductions in scores for both guided and unguided intervention groups were greater than that for the control group, with large between-group effect sizes (guided vs control: d=1.63, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.93; unguided vs control: d=1.47, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73) at postintervention. No significant differences were found between guided and unguided intervention groups (P=.18). At follow-up (6 months), treatment effects on the primary outcome were maintained for both intervention groups (guided: F_1,194=0.62, P>.999; unguided: F_1,176=0.13, P>.999).

Conclusions

Both guided and unguided versions of the intervention were highly effective in reducing depressive symptoms. Follow-up data suggest that these effects could be maintained. The guided version was not superior to the unguided version.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00017191; https://tinyurl.com/2p9h5hnx

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.1186/s13063-021-05218-4