Surgical microdiscectomy versus transforaminal epidural steroid injection in patients with sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc (NERVES): a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal invasive treatment for sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc remains controversial, with a paucity of evidence for use of non-surgical treatments such as transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) over surgical microdiscectomy. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of these options for management of radicular pain secondary to herniated lumbar disc. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial at 11 spinal units across the UK. Eligible patients were aged 16-65 years, had MRI-confirmed non-emergency sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc with symptom duration between 6 weeks and 12 months, and had leg pain that was not responsive to non-invasive management. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either TFESI or surgical microdiscectomy by an online randomisation system that was stratified by centre with random permuted blocks. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks. All randomly assigned participants who completed a valid ODQ at baseline and at 18 weeks were included in the analysis. Safety analysis included all treated participants. Cost-effectiveness was estimated from the EuroQol-5D-5L, Hospital Episode Statistics, medication usage, and self-reported resource-use data. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN04820368, and EudraCT, number 2014-002751-25. FINDINGS: Between March 6, 2015, and Dec 21, 2017, 163 (15%) of 1055 screened patients were enrolled, with 80 participants (49%) randomly assigned to the TFESI group and 83 participants (51%) to the surgery group. At week 18, ODQ scores were 30·02 (SD 24·38) for 63 assessed patients in the TFESI group and 22·30 (19·83) for 61 assessed patients in the surgery group. Mean improvement was 24·52 points (18·89) for the TFESI group and 26·74 points (21·35) for the surgery group, with an estimated treatment difference of -4·25 (95% CI -11·09 to 2·59; p=0·22). There were four serious adverse events in four participants associated with surgery, and none with TFESI. Compared with TFESI, surgery had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38 737 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and a 0·17 probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. INTERPRETATION: For patients with sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc, with symptom duration of up to 12 months, TFESI should be considered as a first invasive treatment option. Surgery is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to TFESI. FUNDING: Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.

Microdiscectomy compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for persistent radicular pain caused by prolapsed intervertebral disc: the NERVES RCT.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect > 3% of the UK population at any time and is most often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc. Currently, there is no uniformly adopted treatment strategy. Invasive treatments, such as surgery (i.e. microdiscectomy) and transforaminal epidural steroid injection, are often reserved for failed conservative treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the management of radicular pain secondary to lumbar prolapsed intervertebral disc for non-emergency presentation of sciatica of < 12 months' duration. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to either (1) microdiscectomy or (2) transforaminal epidural steroid injection. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised prospective trial comparing microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for sciatica due to prolapsed intervertebral disc with < 1 year symptom duration. SETTING: NHS services providing secondary spinal surgical care within the UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 163 participants (aged 16-65 years) were recruited from 11 UK NHS outpatient clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was participant-completed Oswestry Disability Questionnaire score at 18 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes were visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain; modified Roland-Morris score (for sciatica), Core Outcome Measures Index score and participant satisfaction at 12-weekly intervals. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life were assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Hospital Episode Statistics data; medication usage; and self-reported cost data at 12-weekly intervals. Adverse event data were collected. The economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS in England. RESULTS: Eighty-three participants were allocated to transforaminal epidural steroid injection and 80 participants were allocated to microdiscectomy, using an online randomisation system. At week 18, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores had decreased, relative to baseline, by 26.7 points in the microdiscectomy group and by 24.5 points in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection. The difference between the treatments was not statistically significant (estimated treatment effect -4.25 points, 95% confidence interval -11.09 to 2.59 points). Nor were there significant differences between treatments in any of the secondary outcomes: Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores, visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain, modified Roland-Morris score and Core Outcome Measures Index score up to 54 weeks. There were four (3.8%) serious adverse events in the microdiscectomy group, including one nerve palsy (foot drop), and none in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group. Compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection, microdiscectomy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38,737 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: Primary outcome data was invalid or incomplete for 24% of participants. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness to assumptions made regarding missing data. Eighteen per cent of participants in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group subsequently received microdiscectomy prior to their primary outcome assessment. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, the NErve Root Block VErsus Surgery trial is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection. No statistically significant difference was found between the two treatments for the primary outcome. It is unlikely that microdiscectomy is cost-effective compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for sciatica secondary to prolapsed intervertebral disc. FUTURE WORK: These results will lead to further studies in the streamlining and earlier management of discogenic sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04820368 and EudraCT 2014-002751-25. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Sciatica or pain related to nerve irritation travelling down the leg is common in young working adults and most likely to be caused by a 'slipped' (prolapsed) disc. Although the majority of cases get better on their own and within 4­6 weeks, a significant group of patients struggle with disabling symptoms sometimes beyond 1 year. Consequently, patients struggle to maintain their home and working lives. Many treatments are available for sciatica, but simpler treatments (e.g. pain tablets, physiotherapy and changing one's lifestyle) are often not very effective and patients have often tried all of them by the time they are seen in hospital to have tests, such as scans, done. Surgery to remove part of the disc is recommended in cases where the pain is accompanied by severe weakness in one or both legs, or where doctors think that nerves may be damaged because patients have bladder, bowel and sexual functioning difficulties (i.e. red flag symptoms). Surgery works well in alleviation of referred leg pain and also to relieve pressure on a physically compressed nerve that may be showing clinical sign of injury/weakness. An alternative to surgery is to inject a mixture of anaesthetic and steroid close to the site of the disc injury and nerve, but at the moment we do not know whether or not these injections work in the long term. They are cheaper and less invasive, with fewer risks than surgery, such as from anaesthetic or infection. WHAT DID OUR STUDY INVESTIGATE?: This study compared the usefulness of surgery with injections for patients who have had sciatica for < 1 year and who have tried simple remedies but are still in pain. Patients were allocated to have either surgery or the injection. Symptoms (e.g. pain) were assessed after 18 weeks. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that there was no significant difference between surgery and injection at the primary end point. Surgery was not significantly different from injection in terms of clinical outcome and was not cost-effective compared with injection. OUR CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Given the cost of surgery and the risks to patients, we suggest that further studies should be carried out to explore whether or not all patients with sciatica due to a slipped disc should be considered suitable for an injection, unless there is a good reason not to.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injection regimens in children and young people at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost utility of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with multiple daily injection (MDI) regimens during the first year following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children and young people. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, open label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. SETTING: 15 paediatric National Health Service (NHS) diabetes services in England and Wales. The study opened to recruitment in May 2011 and closed in January 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged between 7 months and 15 years, with a new diagnosis of type 1 diabetes were eligible to participate. Patients who had a sibling with the disease, and those who took drug treatments or had additional diagnoses that could have affected glycaemic control were ineligible. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised, stratified by age and treating centre, to start treatment with CSII or MDI within 14 days of diagnosis. Starting doses of aspart (CSII and MDI) and glargine or detemir (MDI) were calculated according to weight and age, and titrated according to blood glucose measurements and according to local clinical practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was glycaemic control (as measured by glycated haemoglobin; HbA1c) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were percentage of patients in each treatment arm with HbA1c within the national target range, incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, change in height and body mass index (as measured by standard deviation scores), insulin requirements (units/kg/day), partial remission rate (insulin dose adjusted HbA1c <9), paediatric quality of life inventory score, and cost utility based on the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained from an NHS costing perspective. RESULTS: 294 participants were randomised and 293 included in intention to treat analyses (CSI, n=144; MDI, n=149). At 12 months, mean HbA1c was comparable with clinically unimportant differences between CSII and MDI participants (60.9 mmol/mol v 58.5 mmol/mol, mean difference 2.4 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval -0.4 to 5.3), P=0.09). Achievement of HbA1c lower than 58 mmol/mol was low among the two groups (66/143 (46%) CSII participants v 78/142 (55%) MDI participants; relative risk 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.06)). Incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were low in both groups. Fifty four non-serious and 14 serious adverse events were reported during CSII treatment, and 17 non-serious and eight serious adverse events during MDI treatment. Parents (but not children) reported superior PedsQL scores for those patients treated with CSII compared to those treated with MDI. CSII was more expensive than MDI by £1863 (€2179; $2474; 95% confidence interval £1620 to £2137) per patient, with no additional QALY gains (difference -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.018)). CONCLUSION: During the first year following type 1 diabetes diagnosis, no clinical benefit of CSII over MDI was identified in children and young people in the UK setting, and treatment with either regimen was suboptimal in achieving HbA1c thresholds. CSII was not cost effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29255275; European Clinical Trials Database 2010-023792-25.

Nerve root block versus surgery (NERVES) for the treatment of radicular pain secondary to a prolapsed intervertebral disc herniation: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect over 3% of the UK population at any time and is often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc (PID). Although the duration and severity of symptoms can vary, pain persisting beyond 6 weeks is unlikely to recover spontaneously and may require investigation and treatment. Currently, there is no specific care pathway for sciatica in the National Health Service (NHS), and no direct comparison exists between surgical microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). The NERVES (NErve Root block VErsus Surgery) trial aims to address this by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical microdiscectomy and TFESI to treat sciatica secondary to a PID. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 163 patients were recruited from NHS out-patient clinics across the UK and randomised to either microdiscectomy or TFESI. Adult patients (aged 16-65 years) with sciatic pain endured for between 6 weeks and 12 months are eligible if their symptoms have not been improved by at least one form of conservative (non-operative) treatment and they are willing to provide consent. Patients will be excluded if they present with neurological deficit or have had previous surgery at the same level. The primary outcome is patient-reported disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks post randomisation and secondary outcomes include disability and pain scales using numerical pain ratings, modified Roland-Morris and Core Outcome Measures Index at 12-weekly intervals, and patient satisfaction at 54 weeks. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life (QOL) will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5 L and self-report cost data at 12-weekly intervals and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. Adverse event data will be collected. Analysis will follow the principle of intention-to-treat. DISCUSSION: NERVES is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy to local anaesthetic and steroid administered via TFESI. The results of this research may facilitate the development of an evidence-based treatment strategy for patients with sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN04820368 . Registered on 5 June 2014. EudraCT EudraCT2014-002751-25. Registered on 8 October 2014.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in children and young people at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: the SCIPI RCT.

BACKGROUND: The risk of developing long-term complications of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is related to glycaemic control and is reduced by the use of intensive insulin treatment regimens: multiple daily injections (MDI) (≥ 4) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Despite a lack of evidence that the more expensive treatment with CSII is superior to MDI, both treatments are used widely within the NHS. OBJECTIVES: (1) To compare glycaemic control during treatment with CSII and MDI and (2) to determine safety and cost-effectiveness of the treatment, and quality of life (QoL) of the patients. DESIGN: A pragmatic, open-label randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot and 12-month follow-up with 1 : 1 web-based block randomisation stratified by age and centre. SETTING: Fifteen diabetes clinics in hospitals in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 7 months to 15 years. INTERVENTIONS: Continuous subsutaneous insulin infusion or MDI initiated within 14 days of diagnosis of T1D. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months using paper forms and were entered centrally. Data from glucometers and CSII were downloaded. The Health Utilities Index Mark 2 was completed at each visit and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL, diabetes module) was completed at 6 and 12 months. Costs were estimated from hospital patient administration system data. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration at 12 months. The secondary outcomes were (1) HbA1c concentrations of < 48 mmol/mol, (2) severe hypoglycaemia, (3) diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), (4) T1D- or treatment-related adverse events (AEs), (5) change in body mass index and height standard deviation score, (6) insulin requirements, (7) QoL and (8) partial remission rate. The economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: A total of 293 participants, with a median age of 9.8 years (minimum 0.7 years, maximum 16 years), were randomised (CSII, n = 149; MDI, n = 144) between May 2011 and January 2015. Primary outcome data were available for 97% of participants (CSII, n = 143; MDI, n = 142). At 12 months, age-adjusted least mean squares HbA1c concentrations were comparable between groups: CSII, 60.9 mmol/mol [95% confidence interval (CI) 58.5 to 63.3 mmol/mol]; MDI, 58.5 mmol/mol (95% CI 56.1 to 60.9 mmol/mol); and the difference of CSII - MDI, 2.4 mmol/mol (95% CI -0.4 to 5.3 mmol/mol). For HbA1c concentrations of < 48 mmol/mol (CSII, 22/143 participants; MDI, 29/142 participants), the relative risk was 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.25), and for partial remission rates (CSII, 21/86 participants; MDI, 21/64), the relative risk was 0.74 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.24). The incidences of severe hypoglycaemia (CSII, 6/144; MDI, 2/149 participants) and DKA (CSII, 2/144 participants; MDI, 0/149 participants) were low. In total, 68 AEs (14 serious) were reported during CSII treatment and 25 AEs (eight serious) were reported during MDI treatment. Growth outcomes did not differ. The reported insulin use was higher with CSII (mean difference 0.1 unit/kg/day, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.2 unit/kg/day; p = 0.01). QoL was slightly higher for those randomised to CSII. From a NHS perspective, CSII was more expensive than MDI mean total cost (£1863, 95% CI £1620 to £2137) with no additional QALY gains (-0.006 QALYs, 95% CI -0.031 to 0.018 QALYs). LIMITATIONS: Generalisability beyond 12 months is uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: No clinical benefit of CSII over MDI was identified. CSII is not a cost-effective treatment in patients representative of the study population. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up is required to determine if clinical outcomes diverge after 1 year. A qualitative exploration of patient and professional experiences of MDI and CSII should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29255275 and EudraCT 2010-023792-25. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The cost of insulin pumps and consumables supplied by F. Hoffman-La Roche AG (Basel, Switzerland) for the purpose of the study were subject to a 25% discount on standard NHS costs.

Protocol for an online randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a peer-supported self-management intervention for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder: Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT).

INTRODUCTION: Despite clinical guidelines recommendations, many relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder do not currently receive the support they need. Online information and support may offer a solution. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-blind, parallel, online randomised controlled trial will determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) (including an online resource directory (RD)), compared with RD only, for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. Both groups continue to receive treatment as usual. Independent, web-based variable, block, individual randomisation will be used across 666 relatives. Primary outcome is distress at 24 weeks (measured by General Health Questionnaire; GHQ-28) compared between groups using analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline score. Secondary clinical outcomes are carer well-being and support. Cost-effectiveness analysis will determine cost of a significant unit change (three-point reduction) in the GHQ-28. Costs include offering and supporting the intervention in the REACT arm, relevant healthcare care costs including health professional contacts, medications prescribed and time off (or ability to) work for the relative. Cost utility analysis will be calculated as the marginal cost of changes in quality-adjusted life years, based on EuroQol. We will explore relatives' beliefs, perceived coping and amount of REACT toolkit use as possible outcome mediators. We have embedded two methodological substudies in the protocol to determine the relative effectiveness of a low-value (£10) versus higher value (£20) incentive, and an unconditional versus conditional incentive, on improving follow-up rates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has ethical approval from Lancaster National Research Ethics Service (NRES)Committee (15/NW/0732) and is overseen by an independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee and Trial Steering Committee. Protocol version 1.5 was approved on 9 January 2017. All updates to protocols are uploaded to the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Journals Library. A full statistical analysis plan is available at https://figshare.com/account/home#/projects/19975. Publications will be in peer-reviewed journals (open access wherever possible). Requests for access to the data at the end of the study will be reviewed and granted where appropriate by the Trial Management Group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72019945, pre-results.

Folate Augmentation of Treatment--Evaluation for Depression (FolATED): randomised trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Folate deficiency is associated with depression. Despite the biological plausibility of a causal link, the evidence that adding folate enhances antidepressant treatment is weak. OBJECTIVES: (1) Estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of folic acid as adjunct to antidepressant medication (ADM). (2) Explore whether baseline folate and homocysteine predict response to treatment. (3) Investigate whether response to treatment depends on genetic polymorphisms related to folate metabolism. DESIGN: FolATED (Folate Augmentation of Treatment - Evaluation for Depression) was a double-blind and placebo-controlled, but otherwise pragmatic, randomised trial including cost-utility analysis. To yield 80% power of detecting standardised difference on the Beck Depression Inventory version 2 (BDI-II) of 0.3 between groups (a 'small' effect), FolATED trialists sought to analyse 358 participants. To allow for an estimated loss of 21% of participants over three time points, we planned to randomise 453. SETTINGS: Clinical - Three centres in Wales - North East Wales, North West Wales and Swansea. Trial management - North Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health in Bangor University. Biochemical analysis - University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff. Genetic analysis - University of Liverpool. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and seventy-five adult patients presenting to primary or secondary care with confirmed moderate to severe depression for which they were taking or about to start ADM, and able to consent and complete assessments, but not (1) folate deficient, vitamin B12 deficient, or taking folic acid or anticonvulsants; (2) misusing drugs or alcohol, or suffering from psychosis, bipolar disorder, malignancy or other unstable or terminal illness; (3) (planning to become) pregnant; or (4) participating in other clinical research. INTERVENTIONS: Once a day for 12 weeks experimental participants added 5 mg of folic acid to their ADM, and control participants added an indistinguishable placebo. All participants followed pragmatic management plans initiated by a trial psychiatrist and maintained by their general medical practitioners. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessed at baseline, and 4, 12 and 25 weeks thereafter, and analysed by 'area under curve' (main); by analysis of covariance at each time point (secondary); and by multi-level repeated measures (sensitivity analysis): Mental health - BDI-II (primary), Clinical Global Impression (CGI), Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), UKU side effects scale, and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) suicidality subscale; General health - UK 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), European Quality of Life scale - 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D); Biochemistry - serum folate, B12, homocysteine; Adherence - Morisky Questionnaire; Economics - resource use. RESULTS: Folic acid did not significantly improve any of these measures. For example it gained a mean of just 2.9 quality-adjusted life-days [95% confidence interval (CI) from -12.7 to 7.0 days] and saved a mean of just £48 (95% CI from -£292 to £389). In contrast it significantly reduced mental health scores on the SF-12 by 3.0% (95% CI from -5.2% to -0.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The FolATED trial generated no evidence that folic acid was clinically effective or cost-effective in augmenting ADM. This negative finding is consistent with improving understanding of the one-carbon folate pathway suggesting that methylfolate is a better candidate for augmenting ADM. Hence the findings of FolATED undermine treatment guidelines that advocate folic acid for treating depression, and suggest future trials of methylfolate to augment ADM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37558856. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 48. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Folate augmentation of treatment - evaluation for depression (FolATED): protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical depression is common, debilitating and treatable; one in four people experience it during their lives. The majority of sufferers are treated in primary care and only half respond well to active treatment. Evidence suggests that folate may be a useful adjunct to antidepressant treatment: 1) patients with depression often have a functional folate deficiency; 2) the severity of such deficiency, indicated by elevated homocysteine, correlates with depression severity, 3) low folate is associated with poor antidepressant response, and 4) folate is required for the synthesis of neurotransmitters implicated in the pathogenesis and treatment of depression. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of this trial is to estimate the effect of folate augmentation in new or continuing treatment of depressive disorder in primary and secondary care. Secondary objectives are to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of folate augmentation of antidepressant treatment, investigate how the response to antidepressant treatment depends on genetic polymorphisms relevant to folate metabolism and antidepressant response, and explore whether baseline folate status can predict response to antidepressant treatment. Seven hundred and thirty patients will be recruited from North East Wales, North West Wales and Swansea. Patients with moderate to severe depression will be referred to the trial by their GP or Psychiatrist. If patients consent they will be assessed for eligibility and baseline measures will be undertaken. Blood samples will be taken to exclude patients with folate and B12 deficiency. Some of the blood taken will be used to measure homocysteine levels and for genetic analysis (with additional consent). Eligible participants will be randomised to receive 5 mg of folic acid or placebo. Patients with B12 deficiency or folate deficiency will be given appropriate treatment and will be monitored in the 'comprehensive cohort study'. Assessments will be at screening, randomisation and 3 subsequent follow-ups. DISCUSSION: If folic acid is shown to improve the efficacy of antidepressants, then it will provide a safe, simple and cheap way of improving the treatment of depression in primary and secondary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN37558856.