Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anticancer treatment, suicide risk and possibly the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. efficacy as a continuous outcome. Our secondary outcomes were 2. efficacy as a dichotomous outcome, 3. Social adjustment, 4. health-related quality of life and 5. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies (1364 participants), 10 of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Six of these compared antidepressants and placebo, three compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update, we included four additional studies, three of which contributed data for the primary outcome. For acute-phase treatment response (six to 12 weeks), antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms when compared with placebo, even though the evidence is very uncertain. This was true when depressive symptoms were measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.12; 7 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when measured as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96; 5 studies, 662 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons, we retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and for mirtazapine versus TCAs. There was no difference between the various classes of antidepressants (continuous outcome: SSRI versus TCA: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18; 3 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mirtazapine versus TCA: SMD -4.80, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.10; 1 study, 25 participants). There was a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants versus placebo for the secondary efficacy outcomes (continuous outcome, response at one to four weeks; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences for these outcomes when comparing two different classes of antidepressants, even though the evidence was very uncertain. In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 9 studies, 889 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and TCAs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.22; 3 studies, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the heterogeneous quality of the studies, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were few and of low quality. This review found a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants against placebo in depressed participants with cancer. However, the certainty of evidence is very low and, on the basis of these results, it is difficult to draw clear implications for practice. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which drug to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of people with major depression, also taking into account that data on people with other serious medical conditions suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Furthermore, this update shows that the usage of the newly US Food and Drug Administration-approved antidepressant esketamine in its intravenous formulation might represent a potential treatment for this specific population of people, since it can be used both as an anaesthetic and an antidepressant. However, data are too inconclusive and further studies are needed. We conclude that to better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

Depressive symptoms during early adulthood and the development of physical multimorbidity in the UK: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: An understanding of whether early-life depression is associated with physical multimorbidity could be instrumental for the development of preventive measures and the integrated management of depression. We therefore aimed to map out the cumulative incidence of physical multimorbidity over adulthood, and to determine the association between the presence of depressive symptoms during early adulthood and the development of physical multimorbidity in middle age. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, we used pooled data from the 1958 National Child Development Study (NCDS) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS). Cohort waves were pooled in each decade of adult life available (when cohort members were aged 26 years in the BCS and 23 years in the NCDS [baseline]; 34 years in the BCS and 33 years in the NCDS [age 34 BCS/33 NCDS]; 42 years in the BCS and NCDS [age 42 BCS/NCDS]; and 46 years in the BCS and 50 years in the NCDS [age 46 BCS/50 NCDS]). We included participants who had completed the nine-item Malaise Inventory at baseline, and did not have a history of physical multimorbidity, any physical multimorbidity at baseline, or the presence of depressive symptoms before the development of physical multimorbidity. The presence of depressive symptoms was determined using the nine-item Malaise Inventory (cutoff score ≥4). Physical multimorbidity was defined as having at least two measures of any of the following ten self-reported groups of long-term conditions: asthma or bronchitis; backache; bladder or kidney conditions; cancer; cardiovascular conditions; convulsions or epilepsy; diabetes; hearing conditions; migraine; and stomach, bowel, or gall conditions. Cumulative incidence (with 95% CI) of physical multimorbidity was calculated for each decade considered after baseline, with physical multimorbidity being assessed as both a dichotomous and categorical variable. The association between depressive symptoms and the development of physical multimorbidity was assessed using adjusted relative risk ratios (with 95% CIs). FINDINGS: Analyses included 15 845 participants, of whom 4001 (25·25%; 95% CI 24·57-25·93) had depressive symptoms at baseline and 11 844 (74·75%; 74·07-75·42) did not. The cumulative incidence of physical multimorbidity (dichotomous) ranged over the study period from 2263 (18·44%; 95% CI 17·75-18·14) of 12 273 participants at age 34 BCS/33 NCDS, to 4496 (42·90%; 41·95-43·85) of 10 481 participants at age 46 BCS/50 NCDS, and was consistently higher in participants with depressive symptoms at baseline. The adjusted relative risk of physical multimorbidity was higher in participants with depressive symptoms than in those without and remained stable over the study period (adjusted relative rate ratio 1·67, 95% CI 1·50-1·87, at age 34 BCS/33 NCDS; 1·63, 1·48-1·79, at age 42 BCS/NCDS; and 1·58, 1·43-1·73, at age 46 BCS/50 NCDS). INTERPRETATION: The presence of depressive symptoms during early adulthood is associated with an increased risk of the development of physical multimorbidity in middle age. Although further research about the drivers of this relationship is needed, these results could help to enhance the integrated management of individuals with depressive symptoms and the development of preventive strategies to reduce the effect and burden of physical multimorbidity. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Guy's Charity.

High-frequency follow-up studies in musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: This scoping review identifies research in musculoskeletal disorders that uses high frequency follow-up of symptoms. The aim was to investigate whether symptom variability is investigated as a predictor of disease outcome and how intensive follow-up methods are used in musculoskeletal research. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE and PsycInfo were searched using OVID, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers was also searched using the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Xplore search engine. Studies were systematically reviewed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, but no meta-analysis was done because the priority in this study is to identify gaps in available literature. RESULTS: Twenty-one papers were included. There was a mean of 54 patients per study (s.d. of 27.7). Two-thirds of the papers looked at how a symptom influences another in the short-term (subsequent assessment in the same day or next day), but none looked at the long-term. Only one study considered symptom variability investigating how higher variability in pain (defined by the s.d.) is associated with higher average pain severity and lower average sleep quality. CONCLUSION: The methodology of musculoskeletal disorder research has changed from completing paper booklets to using electronic data capture (smartphones). There has also been a trend of collecting more intensive longitudinal data, but very little research utilizes these data to look at how symptom variability affects symptom outcomes. This demonstrates a gap in research where furthering understanding of this will help clinicians decide on the most important symptom to address in future patients.

Mental health, fatigue and function are associated with increased risk of disease flare following TNF inhibitor tapering in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an exploratory analysis of data from the Optimizing TNF Tapering in RA (OPTTIRA) trial.

BACKGROUND: Tapering of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy appears feasible, safe and effective in selected patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Depression is highly prevalent in RA and may impact on flare incidence through various mechanisms. This study aims to investigate if psychological states predict flare in patients' dose tapering their anti-TNF therapy. METHODS: This study is a post-hoc analysis of the Optimizing TNF Tapering in RA trial, a multicentre, randomised, open-label study investigating anti-TNF tapering in RA patients with sustained low disease activity. Patient-reported outcomes (Health Assessment Questionnaire, EuroQol 5-dimension scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy fatigue scale (FACIT-F), 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36)) were collected at baseline. The primary outcome was flare, defined as an increase in 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28) ≥0.6 and ≥1 swollen joint. Discrete-time survival models were used to identify patient-reported outcomes that predict flare. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were randomised to taper their anti-TNF dose by either 33% or 66%. Forty-one patients flared. Higher baseline DAS28 score was associated with flare (adjusted HR 1.96 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.24), p=0.01). Disability (SF-36 physical component score), fatigue (FACIT-F) and mental health (SF-36 mental health subscale (MH)) predicted flare in unadjusted models. In multivariate analyses, only SF-36 MH remained a statistically significant predictor of flare (adjusted HR per 10 units 0.74 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.93), p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline DAS28 and mental health status are independently associated with flare in patients who taper their anti-TNF therapy. Fatigue and function also associate with flare but the effect disappears when adjusting for confounders. Given these findings, mental health and functional status should be considered in anti-TNF tapering decisions in order to optimise the likelihood of success. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT Number: 2010-020738-24; ISRCTN: 28955701; Post-results.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to June week 4 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 2017 week 27) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to July week 4 2017). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved a total of 10 studies (885 participants), seven of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update we included one additional unpublished study. These new data contributed to the secondary analysis, while the results of the primary analysis remained unchanged.For acute-phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found no difference between antidepressants as a class and placebo on symptoms of depression measured both as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants; very low certainty evidence) and as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants; very low certainty evidence). No trials reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, showing no difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants; very low certainty evidence). No clear evidence of a beneficial effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from our analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low certainty evidence). In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants as a class compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38, seven RCTs, 479 participants; very low certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty (quality) of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low certainty evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results, clear implications for practice cannot be deduced. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. To better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

Smoking and common mental disorders in patients with chronic conditions: An analysis of data collected via a web-based screening system.

OBJECTIVE: Smoking is the largest preventable cause of death and disability in the UK and remains pervasive in people with mental disorders and in general hospital patients. We aimed to quantify the prevalence of mental disorders and smoking, examining associations between mental disorders and smoking in patients with chronic physical conditions. METHOD: Data were collected via routine screening systems implemented across two London NHS Foundation Trusts. The prevalence of mental disorder, current smoking, nicotine dependence and wanting help with quitting smoking were quantified, and the relationships between mental disorder and smoking were examined, adjusting for age, gender and physical illness, with multiple regression models. RESULTS: A total of 7878 patients were screened; 23.2% screened positive for probable major depressive disorder, and 18.5% for probable generalised anxiety disorder. Overall, 31.4% and 29.2% of patients with probable major depressive disorder or generalised anxiety disorder respectively were current smokers. Probable major depression and generalised anxiety disorder were associated with 93% and 44% increased odds of being a current smoker respectively. Patients with depressive disorder also reported higher levels of nicotine dependence, and the presence of common mental disorder was not associated with odds of wanting help with quitting smoking. CONCLUSION: Common mental disorder in patients with chronic physical health conditions is a risk factor for markedly increased smoking prevalence and nicotine dependence. A general hospital encounter represents an opportunity to help patients who may benefit from such interventions.

Fatigue and psychosocial variables in autoimmune rheumatic disease and chronic fatigue syndrome: A cross-sectional comparison.

OBJECTIVE: Fatigue is common in autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD). This study compared symptom-related cognitions, beliefs, behaviours, quality of sleep, lack of acceptance and distress in participants with ARD such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), seronegative spondyloarthropathy (SpA), and connective tissue disease (CTD), and participants with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). METHODS: 303 participants with RA, SpA, CTD and CFS completed questionnaire measures of fatigue, social adjustment, cognitive-behavioural responses, lack of acceptance, distress and quality of sleep. The RA, SpA and CTD groups were first compared with each other. They were then combined into one group and compared with the CFS group. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the RA, SpA or CTD groups for any of the measures. The CFS group was more fatigued, reported more distress and sleep disturbance and had worse social adjustment than the ARD group after adjustment for age and illness duration. After adjustment for fatigue, age, and illness duration, the CFS group scored more highly on lack of acceptance and avoidance/resting behaviour while the ARD group showed significantly higher levels of catastrophizing, damage beliefs, and symptom focusing than the CFS group. CONCLUSION: Fatigue in rheumatic diseases may be perpetuated by similar underlying transdiagnostic processes. The ARD and CFS groups showed similarities but also key differences in their responses to symptoms. Specific aspects of treatment may need to be tailored towards each group. For example, lack of acceptance and avoidance behaviour may be particularly important in perpetuating fatigue in CFS.

Usefulness of the SF-36 Health Survey in screening for depressive and anxiety disorders in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) mental health subscale (MH) and mental component summary (MCS) scores in identifying the presence of probable major depressive or anxiety disorder in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: SF-36 data were collected in 100 hospital outpatients with rheumatoid arthritis. MH and MCS scores were compared against depression and anxiety data collected using validated measures as part of routine clinical practice. Sensitivity and specificity of the SF-36 were established using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and area under the curve (AUC) compared the performance of the SF-36 components with the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9) for depression and the 7-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD7) questionnaire for anxiety. RESULTS: The MH with a threshold of ≤52 had sensitivity and specificity of 81.0 and 71.4 % respectively to detect anxiety, correctly classifying 73.5 % of patients with probable anxiety disorder. A threshold of ≤56 had sensitivity and specificity of 92.6 and 73.2 % respectively to detect depression, correctly classifying 78.6 % of patients, and the same threshold could also be used to detect either depression or anxiety with a sensitivity of 87.9 %, specificity of 76.9 % and accuracy of 80.6 %. The MCS with a threshold of ≤35 had sensitivity and specificity of 85.7 and 81.9 % respectively to detect anxiety, correctly classifying 82.8 % of patients with probable anxiety disorder. A threshold of ≤40 had sensitivity and specificity of 92.3 and 70.2 % respectively to detect depression, correctly classifying 76.3 % of patients. A threshold of ≤38 could be used to detect either depression or anxiety with a sensitivity of 87.5 %, specificity of 80.3 % and accuracy of 82.8 %. CONCLUSION: This analysis may increase the utility of a widely-used questionnaire. Overall, optimal use of the SF-36 for screening for mental disorder may be through using the MCS with a threshold of ≤38 to identify the presence of either depression or anxiety.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants in this population group are few and often report conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April week 3, 2014), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2014 week 17) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to April week 4, 2014). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs allocating adults (18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis) comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into RevMan 5 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved a total of nine studies (861 participants), with seven studies contributing to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants and one-three armed study compared two antidepressants and a placebo arm. For the acute phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class on symptoms of depression compared with placebo when measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants) or as a proportion of people who had depression (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants). No trials reported data on the follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, providing very low quality evidence for the difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants). No clear evidence of an effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from the analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low quality evidence). We found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class in terms of dropouts due to any cause compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.53, six RCTs, 455 participants), as well as between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low quality evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results clear implications for practice cannot be made. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent should be prescribed may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer with depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder, are urgently needed to better inform clinical practice.

A pilot randomized controlled trial to increase smoking cessation by maintaining National Health Service Stop Smoking Service attendance.

OBJECTIVES: The National Health Service (NHS) Stop Smoking Service (SSS) is an extremely cost-effective method of enabling smoking cessation. However, the SSS is only used by a minority of smokers. Developing interventions to maintain service attendance may help to increase the number of quitters. This study pilots an intervention aimed at maintaining attendance by (1) increasing motivation to attend through a booklet providing evidence of service effectiveness and (2) strengthening the link between motivation to attend and attendance through forming an implementation intention. DESIGN: A factorial randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 160 newly enrolled smokers at the Surrey NHS SSS were recruited and randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) standard care (SC), (2) SC + effectiveness booklet, (3) SC + implementation intention, and (4) SC + effectiveness booklet + implementation intention. The outcome measures included attendance at the SSS and the 4-week quit rate. RESULTS: The booklet increased service attendance (OR = 2.93, p < .01, 95% CI = 1.45-5.93; Number Needed to Treat = 3.3) but had no impact on the 4-week quit rate (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.75-3.21). Forming an implementation intention had no impact on service attendance or the 4-week quit rate. Attending the service was associated with a higher 4-week quit rate (ρ = 87.52, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Presenting information about the effectiveness of the service improved service attendance. A larger trial now needs to evaluate whether this intervention can also increase the quit rate. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION: What is already known on this subject? The NHS Stop Smoking Service is an effective yet underused method of enabling smoking cessation. Low uptake levels may be due to smokers' misconception that the service will not improve their chances of quitting successfully. Improving smokers' perceptions of service efficacy may be valuable for maintaining service attendance, and subsequently improving smoking cessation levels in the United Kingdom. What does this study add? This pilot randomized controlled trial is the first to target service attendance rather than cessation levels. The results demonstrate that providing evidence of service efficacy in a simple icon array format can significantly improve service attendance.