Integrated therapist and online CBT for depression in primary care (INTERACT): study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. Self-directed online CBT interventions have made CBT more accessible at a lower cost. However, adherence is often poor and, in the absence of therapist support, effects are modest and short-term. Delivering CBT online using instant messaging is clinically and cost-effective; however, most existing platforms are limited to instant messaging sessions, without the support of between-session "homework" activities. The INTERACT intervention integrates online CBT materials and 'high-intensity' therapist-led CBT, delivered remotely in real-time. The INTERACT trial will evaluate this novel integration in terms of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and acceptability to therapists and clients. METHODS: Pragmatic, two parallel-group multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial, with 434 patients recruited from primary care practices in Bristol, London and York. Participants with depression will be identified via General Practitioner record searches and direct referrals. INCLUSION CRITERIA: aged ≥ 18 years; score ≥ 14 on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II); meeting International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) criteria for depression. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: alcohol or substance dependency in the past year; bipolar disorder; schizophrenia; psychosis; dementia; currently under psychiatric care for depression (including those referred but not yet seen); cannot complete questionnaires unaided or requires an interpreter; currently receiving CBT/other psychotherapy; received high-intensity CBT in the past four years; participating in another intervention trial; unwilling/unable to receive CBT via computer/laptop/smartphone. Eligible participants will be randomised to integrated CBT or usual care. Integrated CBT utilises the standard Beckian intervention for depression and comprises nine live therapist-led sessions, with (up to) a further three if clinically appropriate. The first session is 60-90 min via videocall, with subsequent 50-min sessions delivered online, using instant messaging. Participants allocated integrated CBT can access integrated online CBT resources (worksheets/information sheets/videos) within and between sessions. Outcome assessments at 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month post-randomisation. The primary outcome is the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 6 months (as a continuous variable). A nested qualitative study and health economic evaluation will be conducted. DISCUSSION: If clinically and cost-effective, this model of integrated CBT could be introduced into existing psychological services, increasing access to, and equity of, CBT provision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN13112900. Registered on 11/11/2020. Currently recruiting participants. Trial registration data are presented in Table 1.

Socioeconomic Indicators of Treatment Prognosis for Adults With Depression: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.

Importance: Socioeconomic factors are associated with the prevalence of depression, but their associations with prognosis are unknown. Understanding this association would aid in the clinical management of depression. Objective: To determine whether employment status, financial strain, housing status, and educational attainment inform prognosis for adults treated for depression in primary care, independent of treatment and after accounting for clinical prognostic factors. Data Sources: The Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception to October 8, 2021. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized clinical trials that used the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R; the most common comprehensive screening and diagnostic measure of depressive and anxiety symptoms in primary care randomized clinical trials), measured socioeconomic factors at baseline, and sampled patients with unipolar depression who sought treatment for depression from general physicians/practitioners or who scored 12 or more points on the CIS-R. Exclusion criteria included patients with depression secondary to a personality or psychotic disorder or neurologic condition, studies of bipolar or psychotic depression, studies that included children or adolescents, and feasibility studies. Studies were independently assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria by 2 reviewers. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted and cleaned by data managers for each included study, further cleaned by multiple reviewers, and cross-checked by study chief investigators. Risk of bias and quality were assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-Individual Participant Data (PRISMA-IPD) reporting guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Depressive symptoms at 3 to 4 months after baseline. Results: This systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis identified 9 eligible studies that provided individual patient data for 4864 patients (mean [SD] age, 42.5 (14.0) years; 3279 women [67.4%]). The 2-stage random-effects meta-analysis end point depressive symptom scale scores were 28% (95% CI, 20%-36%) higher for unemployed patients than for employed patients and 18% (95% CI, 6%-30%) lower for patients who were homeowners than for patients living with family or friends, in hostels, or homeless, which were equivalent to 4.2 points (95% CI, 3.6-6.2 points) and 2.9 points (95% CI, 1.1-4.9 points) on the Beck Depression Inventory II, respectively. Financial strain and educational attainment were associated with prognosis independent of treatment, but unlike employment and housing status, there was little evidence of associations after adjusting for clinical prognostic factors. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that unemployment was associated with a poor prognosis whereas home ownership was associated with improved prognosis. These differences were clinically important and independent of the type of treatment received. Interventions that address employment or housing difficulties could improve outcomes for patients with depression.

Digital interventions in mental health: evidence syntheses and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations provide evidence on whether or not digital interventions offer value for money, based on their costs and outcomes relative to the costs and outcomes of alternatives. OBJECTIVES: (1) Evaluate and summarise published economic studies about digital interventions across different technologies, therapies, comparators and mental health conditions; (2) synthesise clinical evidence about digital interventions for an exemplar mental health condition; (3) construct an economic model for the same exemplar mental health condition using the previously synthesised clinical evidence; and (4) consult with stakeholders about how they understand and assess the value of digital interventions. METHODS: We completed four work packages: (1) a systematic review and quality assessment of economic studies about digital interventions; (2) a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; (3) an economic model and value-of-information analysis on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; and (4) a series of knowledge exchange face-to-face and digital seminars with stakeholders. RESULTS: In work package 1, we reviewed 76 economic evaluations: 11 economic models and 65 within-trial analyses. Although the results of the studies are not directly comparable because they used different methods, the overall picture suggests that digital interventions are likely to be cost-effective, compared with no intervention and non-therapeutic controls, whereas the value of digital interventions compared with face-to-face therapy or printed manuals is unclear. In work package 2, we carried out two network meta-analyses of 20 randomised controlled trials of digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder with a total of 2350 participants. The results were used to inform our economic model, but when considered on their own they were inconclusive because of the very wide confidence intervals. In work package 3, our decision-analytic model found that digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder were associated with lower net monetary benefit than medication and face-to-face therapy, but greater net monetary benefit than non-therapeutic controls and no intervention. Value for money was driven by clinical outcomes rather than by intervention costs, and a value-of-information analysis suggested that uncertainty in the treatment effect had the greatest value (£12.9B). In work package 4, stakeholders identified several areas of benefits and costs of digital interventions that are important to them, including safety, sustainability and reducing waiting times. Four factors may influence their decisions to use digital interventions, other than costs and outcomes: increasing patient choice, reaching underserved populations, enabling continuous care and accepting the 'inevitability of going digital'. LIMITATIONS: There was substantial uncertainty around effect estimates of digital interventions compared with alternatives. This uncertainty was driven by the small number of studies informing most comparisons, the small samples in some of these studies and the studies' high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Digital interventions may offer good value for money as an alternative to 'doing nothing' or 'doing something non-therapeutic' (e.g. monitoring or having a general discussion), but their added value compared with medication, face-to-face therapy and printed manuals is uncertain. Clinical outcomes rather than intervention costs drive 'value for money'. FUTURE WORK: There is a need to develop digital interventions that are more effective, rather than just cheaper, than their alternatives. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105837. 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. 26, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Digital interventions are activities accessed via technology platforms (e.g. computers, smartphones and virtual reality) that can improve users' mental health and reduce addiction problems. To assess whether or not digital interventions offer 'value for money', we needed to compare their costs and outcomes with the costs and outcomes of alternatives, such as face-to-face therapy and medication. This was done through economic evaluations. This project consisted of four work packages. In work package 1, we reviewed 76 published economic evaluations of digital interventions for different mental health and addiction problems. We could not directly compare their results because of differences in the methods that were used, but the overall picture suggested that digital interventions could offer good value for money as an alternative to 'doing nothing' or simply monitoring someone or giving them general information. The picture was unclear when digital interventions were compared with face-to-face therapy. In work package 2, we pooled research studies that evaluated the outcomes of digital interventions in reducing anxiety and worry; the results were inconclusive because we were uncertain about the differences in outcomes between digital interventions and alternatives. In work package 3, an economic model suggested that value for money in digital interventions is driven by how good they are and not by how much they cost. In work package 4, we presented our methods and results to service users, mental health professionals and researchers who wanted to know more about the value of digital interventions for specific groups (e.g. children and older adults) and for outcomes other than reducing symptoms (e.g. reducing waiting times for treatment and improving attendance for therapy). Finally, the stakeholders highlighted four factors that may influence their decisions to use digital interventions, other than costs and outcomes: increasing choice, reaching underserved populations, enabling continuous care and accepting the 'inevitability of going digital'.

Can We Prevent Depression in At-Risk Older Adults Using Self-Help? The UK SHARD Trial of Behavioral Activation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of established depression is the dominant approach to care of older adults, but prevention holds much promise. Self-help interventions are a feasible preventive approach, since they are scalable and low cost. There are few trials in this area. Behavioral Activation (BA) is a credible candidate psychological approach, which has been shown to work in therapist led care but not been trialled in a self-help form. AIM: To test the effectiveness of an unguided self-help intervention based on BA for older adults. METHODS: We compared a self-help intervention based on BA for older people (n = 172) to usual care (n = 160) in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Outcomes were depression status and severity (PHQ9) and health related quality of life (SF12). The primary timepoint of the primary outcome was depression at 4 months, with longer term follow up at 12 months to test sustained impact of the primary outcome. RESULTS: At 4 months adjusted PHQ-9 scores for BA self-help were 0.79 lower (95% CI: -1.70 to 0.13; p = 0.09) and the proportion of participants with case-level depression was significantly reduced (BA 31/137 (22.6%) versus usual care 41/141 (29.1%); Odds Ratio 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26-0.92; p = 0.03). There was no PHQ-9 difference at 12 months or for health related quality of life at any point (4 or 12 months). DISCUSSION: Self-help using BA for older people at risk of depression is a feasible and scalable intervention with potential short-term benefits in preventing depression.

Antidepressant medication to prevent depression relapse in primary care: the ANTLER RCT.

BACKGROUND: There has been a steady increase in the number of primary care patients receiving long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment, despite limited evidence of a benefit of this treatment beyond 8 months. OBJECTIVE: The ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession (ANTLER) trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressant medication in preventing relapse in UK primary care. DESIGN: This was a Phase IV, double-blind, pragmatic, multisite, individually randomised parallel-group controlled trial, with follow-up at 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. Participants were randomised using minimisation on centre, type of antidepressant and baseline depressive symptom score above or below the median using Clinical Interview Schedule - Revised (two categories). Statisticians were blind to allocation for the outcome analyses. SETTING: General practices in London, Bristol, Southampton and York. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 18-74 years who had experienced at least two episodes of depression and had been taking antidepressants for ≥ 9 months but felt well enough to consider stopping their medication. Those who met an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of depression or with other psychiatric conditions were excluded. INTERVENTION: At baseline, participants were taking citalopram 20 mg, sertraline 100 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg or mirtazapine 30 mg. They were randomised to either remain on their current medication or discontinue medication after a tapering period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the time, in weeks, to the beginning of the first depressive episode after randomisation. This was measured by a retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule - Revised that assessed the onset of a depressive episode in the previous 12 weeks, and was conducted at 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. The depression-related resource use was collected over 12 months from medical records and patient-completed questionnaires. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. RESULTS: Between 9 March 2017 and 1 March 2019, we randomised 238 participants to antidepressant continuation (the maintenance group) and 240 participants to antidepressant discontinuation (the discontinuation group). The time to relapse of depression was shorter in the discontinuation group, with a hazard ratio of 2.06 (95% confidence interval 1.56 to 2.70; p < 0.0001). By 52 weeks, relapse was experienced by 39% of those who continued antidepressants and 56% of those who discontinued antidepressants. The secondary analysis revealed that people who discontinued experienced more withdrawal symptoms than those who remained on medication, with the largest difference at 12 weeks. In the discontinuation group, 37% (95% confidence interval 28% to 45%) of participants remained on their randomised medication until the end of the trial. In total, 39% (95% confidence interval 32% to 45%) of participants in the discontinuation group returned to their original antidepressant compared with 20% (95% confidence interval 15% to 25%) of participants in maintenance group. The health economic evaluation demonstrated that participants randomised to discontinuation had worse utility scores at 3 months (-0.037, 95% confidence interval -0.059 to -0.015) and fewer quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months (-0.019, 95% confidence interval -0.035 to -0.003) than those randomised to continuation. The discontinuation pathway, besides giving worse outcomes, also cost more [extra £2.71 per patient over 12 months (95% confidence interval -£36.10 to £37.07)] than the continuation pathway, although the cost difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who discontinue long-term maintenance antidepressants in primary care are at increased risk of relapse and withdrawal symptoms. However, a substantial proportion of patients can discontinue antidepressants without relapse. Our findings will give patients and clinicians an estimate of the likely benefits and harms of stopping long-term maintenance antidepressants and improve shared decision-making. The participants may not have been representative of all people on long-term maintenance treatment and we could study only a restricted range of antidepressants and doses. Identifying patients who will not relapse if they discontinued antidepressants would be clinically important. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15969819 and EudraCT 2015-004210-26. 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. 69. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Antidepressants are used to treat depression when someone is unwell, but are also used as maintenance treatment to prevent the reoccurrence of depression. There has been a large increase in the use of long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment, but the evidence for the benefits of maintenance beyond 8 months is very poor. The ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession (ANTLER) trial was a randomised controlled trial that examined the effectiveness of long-term maintenance treatment with antidepressants. The participants were well enough to consider stopping antidepressant medication, were recruited from primary care and had taken antidepressants for ≥ 9 months. In total, 238 participants were randomised to continue taking antidepressants and 240 were randomised to receive a visually identical tablet that contained no active ingredients after a period when the antidepressants were gradually reduced. Neither the participants nor those interviewing them knew which group they had been placed in, and they were followed up for 1 year. Participants who discontinued antidepressants were more likely to experience relapse than those who continued antidepressants. By 52 weeks, 39% of those who continued antidepressants had experienced a relapse, compared with 56% in the group that discontinued antidepressants. In other words, over a 52-week period, one in every six patients who stopped antidepressants would experience a relapse that may not have occurred if they had remained on their antidepressants. Patients in the discontinuation group reported more symptoms of anxiety and depression and experienced more withdrawal symptoms than those in the maintenance group, mostly in the first 3­4 months after stopping the antidepressants. Participants in the discontinuation group also reported lower quality of life than those in the maintenance group but both groups used similar amounts of health-care and social care resources over the 12-month period. About one-third of participants who were allocated to the discontinuation group in the ANTLER trial decided to restart their antidepressants. However, another one-third of participants in that group remained on trial medication for 12 months and managed without antidepressants. Long-term maintenance treatment with antidepressants is effective in reducing the rate of relapses. For those who are considering stopping their antidepressant, our findings will provide estimates of the likely benefits and harms, to improve shared decision-making and support the regular review of long-term antidepressant prescription.

Assessment of cytokines, microRNA and patient related outcome measures in conversion disorder/functional neurological disorder (CD/FND): The CANDO clinical feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Conversion disorder/functional neurological disorder (CD/FND) occurs often in neurological settings and can lead to long-term distress, disability and demand on health care services. Systemic low-grade inflammation might play a role, however, the pathogenic mechanism is still unknown. AIM: 1) To explore the feasibility to establish and assess a cohort of CD/FND with motor symptoms, involving persons with lived experience (PPI). 2) To generate proof of concept regarding a possible role for cytokines, microRNA, cortisol levels and neurocognitive symptoms in patients with motor CD/FND. METHOD: Feasibility study. RESULTS: The study showed active involvement of patients despite high clinical illness burden and disability, neurocognitive symptoms, childhood adverse experiences (ACE) and current life events. The study provided valuable knowledge regarding the feasibility of conducting a study in these patients that will inform future study phases. In the sample there were elevated levels of IL6, IL12, IL17A, IFNg, TNFa and VEGF-a, suggesting systemic low-grade inflammation. Also, microRNAs involved in inflammation and vascular inflammation were correlated with TNFa and VEGFa respectively, suggesting proof of concept for an epigenetic mechanism. Owing to the COVID-19 outbreak, the patient sample was limited to 15 patients. CONCLUSION: It is a novelty that this study is conducted in the clinical setting. This innovative, translational study explores stress-related SLI in CD/FND patients and the feasibility of a larger project aiming to develop new treatments for this vulnerable population. Given the positive findings, there is scope to conduct further research into the mechanism of disease in CD/FND.

Systematic Review and Critique of Methods for Economic Evaluation of Digital Mental Health Interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Investment in digital interventions for mental health conditions is growing rapidly, offering the potential to elevate systems that are currently overstretched. Despite a growing literature on economic evaluation of digital mental health interventions (DMHIs), including several systematic reviews, there is no conclusive evidence regarding their cost-effectiveness. This paper reviews the methodology used to determine their cost-effectiveness and assesses whether this meets the requirements for decision-making. In doing so we consider the challenges specific to the economic evaluation of DMHIs, and identify where consensus and possible further research is warranted. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify all economic evaluations of DMHIs published between 1997 and December 2018. The searches included databases of published and unpublished research, reference lists and citations of all included studies, forward citations on all identified protocols and conference abstracts, and contacting authors researchers in the field. The identified studies were critiqued against a published set of requirements for decision-making in healthcare, identifying methodological challenges and areas where consensus is required. RESULTS: The review identified 67 papers evaluating DMHIs. The majority of the evaluations were conducted alongside trials, failing to capture all relevant available evidence and comparators, and long-term impact of mental health disorders. The identified interventions are complex and heterogeneous. As a result, there are a number of challenges specific to their evaluation, including estimation of all costs and outcomes, conditional on analysis viewpoint, and identification of relevant comparators. A taxonomy for DMHIs may be required to inform what interventions can reasonably be pooled and compared. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first attempt to understand the appropriateness of the methodologies used to evaluate the value for money of DMHIs, helping work towards consensus and methods' harmonisation on these complex interventions.

Smoking cessation in severe mental ill health: what works? an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental ill health are more likely to smoke than those in the general population. It is therefore important that effective smoking cessation strategies are used to help people with severe mental ill health to stop smoking. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost -effectiveness of smoking cessation and reduction strategies in adults with severe mental ill health in both inpatient and outpatient settings. METHODS: This is an update of a previous systematic review. Electronic databases were searched during September 2016 for randomised controlled trials comparing smoking cessation interventions to each other, usual care, or placebo. Data was extracted on biochemically-verified, self-reported smoking cessation (primary outcome), as well as on smoking reduction, body weight, psychiatric symptom, and adverse events (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: We included 26 trials of pharmacological and/or behavioural interventions. Eight trials comparing bupropion to placebo were pooled showing that bupropion improved quit rates significantly in the medium and long term but not the short term (short term RR = 6.42 95% CI 0.82-50.07; medium term RR = 2.93 95% CI 1.61-5.34; long term RR = 3.04 95% CI 1.10-8.42). Five trials comparing varenicline to placebo showed that that the addition of varenicline improved quit rates significantly in the medium term (RR = 4.13 95% CI 1.36-12.53). The results from five trials of specialised smoking cessation programmes were pooled and showed no evidence of benefit in the medium (RR = 1.32 95% CI 0.85-2.06) or long term (RR = 1.33 95% CI 0.85-2.08). There was insufficient data to allowing pooling for all time points for varenicline and trials of specialist smoking cessation programmes. Trials suggest few adverse events although safety data were not always reported. Only one pilot study reported cost effectiveness data. CONCLUSIONS: Bupropion and varenicline, which have been shown to be effective in the general population, also work for people with severe mental ill health and their use in patients with stable psychiatric conditions. Despite good evidence for the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental ill health, the percentage of people with severe mental ill health who smoke remains higher than that for the general population.

The second Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT-2) trial: does the provision of telephone support enhance the effectiveness of computer-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy? A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) is an efficient form of therapy potentially improving access to psychological care. Indirect evidence suggests that the uptake and effectiveness of cCBT can be increased if facilitated by telephone, but this is not routinely offered in the NHS. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone-facilitated free-to-use cCBT [e.g. MoodGYM (National Institute for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia)] with minimally supported cCBT. DESIGN: This study was a multisite, pragmatic, open, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with a concurrent economic evaluation. SETTING: Participants were recruited from GP practices in Bristol, Manchester, Sheffield, Hull and the north-east of England. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants were eligible to participate in the trial if they were adults with depression scoring ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised using a computer-generated random number sequence to receive minimally supported cCBT or telephone-facilitated cCBT. Participants continued with usual general practitioner care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported symptoms of depression, as assessed by the PHQ-9 at 4 months post randomisation. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Secondary outcomes were depression at 12 months and anxiety, somatoform complaints, health utility (as assessed by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire) and resource use at 4 and 12 months. RESULTS: Clinical effectiveness: 182 participants were randomised to minimally supported cCBT and 187 participants to telephone-facilitated cCBT. There was a difference in the severity of depression at 4 and 12 months, with lower levels in the telephone-facilitated group. The odds of no longer being depressed (defined as a PHQ-9 score of < 10) at 4 months were twice as high in the telephone-facilitated cCBT group [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 3.42]. The benefit of telephone-facilitated cCBT was no longer significant at 12 months (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.71). At 4 months the between-group difference in PHQ-9 scores was 1.9 (95% CI 0.5 to 3.3). At 12 months the results still favoured telephone-facilitated cCBT but were no longer statistically significant, with a difference in PHQ-9 score of 0.9 (95% CI -0.5 to 2.3). When considering the whole follow-up period, telephone-facilitated cCBT was asssociated with significantly lower PHQ-9 scores than minimally supported cCBT (mean difference -1.41, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.17; p = 0.025). There was a significant improvement in anxiety scores over the trial period (between-group difference 1.1, 95% CI 0.1 to 2.3; p = 0.037). In the case of somatic complaints (assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-15), there was a borderline statistically significant difference over the trial period (between-group difference 1.1, 95% CI 0.0 to 1.8; p = 0.051). There were gains in quality-adjusted life-years at reduced cost when telephone facilitation was added to MoodGYM. However, the results were subject to uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed short-term benefits from the addition of telephone facilitation to cCBT. The effect was small to moderate and comparable with that of other primary care psychological interventions. Telephone facilitation should be considered when offering cCBT for depression. LIMITATIONS: Participants' depression was assessed with the PHQ-9, cCBT use was quite low and there was a slightly greater than anticipated loss to follow-up. FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS: Improve the acceptability of cCBT and its capacity to address coexisting disorders. Large-scale pragmatic trials of cCBT with bibliotherapy and telephone-based interventions are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55310481. 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. 20, No. 89. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A randomised controlled trial of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for the treatment of depression in primary care: the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT) trial.

BACKGROUND: Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) has been developed as an efficient form of therapy delivery with the potential to enhance access to psychological care. Independent research is needed which examines both the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT over the short and longer term. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care against usual GP care alone, for a free-to-use cCBT program (MoodGYM; National Institute for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) and a commercial pay-to-use cCBT program (Beating the Blues(®); Ultrasis, London, UK) for adults with depression, and to determine the acceptability of cCBT and the experiences of users. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, three-armed, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with concurrent economic and qualitative evaluations. Simple randomisation was used. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. SETTING: Primary care in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with depression who scored ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). INTERVENTIONS: Participants who were randomised to either of the two intervention groups received cCBT (Beating the Blues or MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants who were randomised to the control group were offered usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was depression at 4 months (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes were depression at 12 and 24 months; measures of mental health and health-related quality of life at 4, 12 and 24 months; treatment preference; and the acceptability of cCBT and experiences of users. RESULTS: Clinical effectiveness: 210 patients were randomised to Beating the Blues, 242 patients were randomised to MoodGYM and 239 patients were randomised to usual GP care (total 691). There was no difference in the primary outcome (depression measured at 4 months) either between Beating the Blues and usual GP care [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.88] or between MoodGYM and usual GP care (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.56). There was no overall difference across all time points for either intervention compared with usual GP care in a mixed model (Beating the Blues versus usual GP care, p = 0.96; and MoodGYM versus usual GP care, p = 0.11). However, a small but statistically significant difference between MoodGYM and usual GP care at 12 months was found (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93). Free-to-use cCBT (MoodGYM) was not inferior to pay-to-use cCBT (Beating the Blues) (OR 0.91, 90% CI 0.62 to 1.34; p = 0.69). There were no consistent benefits of either intervention when secondary outcomes were examined. There were no serious adverse events thought likely to be related to the trial intervention. Despite the provision of regular technical telephone support, there was low uptake of the cCBT programs. Cost-effectiveness: cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that neither Beating the Blues nor MoodGYM appeared cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. Qualitative evaluation: participants were often demotivated to access the computer programs, by reason of depression. Some expressed the view that a greater level of therapeutic input would be needed to promote engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits that have previously been observed in developer-led trials were not found in this large pragmatic RCT. The benefits of cCBT when added to routine primary care were minimal, and uptake of this mode of therapy was relatively low. There remains a clinical and economic need for effective low-intensity psychological treatments for depression with improved patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN91947481. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: How effective is supported computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as an adjunct to usual primary care for adults with depression? METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, three arm, parallel randomised controlled trial with simple randomisation. Treatment allocation was not blinded. Participants were adults with symptoms of depression (score ≥ 10 on nine item patient health questionnaire, PHQ-9) who were randomised to receive a commercially produced cCBT programme ("Beating the Blues") or a free to use cCBT programme (MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants were supported and encouraged to complete the programme via weekly telephone calls. Control participants were offered usual GP care, with no constraints on the range of treatments that could be accessed. The primary outcome was severity of depression assessed with the PHQ-9 at four months. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life (measured by SF-36) and psychological wellbeing (measured by CORE-OM) at four, 12, and 24 months and depression at 12 and 24 months. STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS: Participants offered commercial or free to use cCBT experienced no additional improvement in depression compared with usual GP care at four months (odds ratio 1.19 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.88) for Beating the Blues v usual GP care; 0.98 (0.62 to 1.56) for MoodGYM v usual GP care). There was no evidence of an overall difference between either programme compared with usual GP care (0.99 (0.57 to 1.70) and 0.68 (0.42 to 1.10), respectively) at any time point. Commercially provided cCBT conferred no additional benefit over free to use cCBT or usual GP care at any follow-up point. Uptake and use of cCBT was low, despite regular telephone support. Nearly a quarter of participants (24%) had dropped out by four months. The study did not have enough power to detect small differences so these cannot be ruled out. Findings cannot be generalised to cCBT offered with a much higher level of guidance and support. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Supported cCBT does not substantially improve depression outcomes compared with usual GP care alone. In this study, neither a commercially available nor free to use computerised CBT intervention was superior to usual GP care. FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING: Commissioned and funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (project No 06/43/05). The authors have no competing interests. Requests for patient level data will be considered by the REEACT trial management groupTrial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91947481.

The use of unequal randomisation in clinical trials--An update.

OBJECTIVE: To update a 2005 review of the reasons researchers have given for the use of unequal randomisation in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). MAIN MEASURES: Intervention being tested; type of study; number of participants; randomisation ratio; sample size calculation and reason given for using unequal randomisation. METHODS: Review of trials using unequal randomisation. DATABASES AND SOURCES: Cochrane library, Medline and CINAHL. RESULTS: A total of 86 trials were identified. Of these 82 trials (95%) recruited patients in favour of the experimental group. Various reasons for the use of unequal randomisation were given including: gaining treatment experience; identification of adverse events; ethical; logistic and enhancing recruitment. No trial reported explicitly used it for cost-effectiveness. Most of the papers (i.e. 47, 55%) did not state why they had used unequal randomisation and only 38 trials (44%) appeared to have taken the unequal randomisation into account in their sample size calculation. CONCLUSION: Most studies did not mention the rationale for unequal allocation, and a significant proportion did not appear to account for it in the sample size calculations. Unlike the previous review economic considerations were not stated as a rationale for its use. A number of trials used it to enhance recruitment, although this has not been tested.

Cost-effectiveness of acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome: findings from an economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether acupuncture is a cost-effective treatment for irritable bowel syndrome. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture as an adjunct to usual care versus usual care alone for the treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). METHODS: Cost-utility analysis conducted alongside a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. 233 patients with irritable bowel syndrome were randomly allocated to either acupuncture plus usual care, or usual care alone. Cost-effectiveness outcomes are expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) at one year after randomisation. Costs were estimated from the UK National Health Service perspective for a time horizon of one year. Cost-utility ratios were estimated based on complete case analysis for the base case analysis, where only patients with available EQ-5D and cost data were included. Sensitivity analyses comprised a multiple imputation approach for missing data and a subgroup analysis for the more severe cases of IBS. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed acupuncture to be marginally more effective than usual care (gain of 0.0035 QALYs, 95% CI: -0.00395 to 0.0465) and more expensive (incremental cost of £218 per patient (95% CI: 55.87 to 492.87) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately £62,500. Sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation for missing data resulted in acupuncture appearing less effective and more costly than usual care, so usual care is dominant. Subgroup analysis selecting the most severe cases of IBS (Symptom Severity Score of over 300) suggested that acupuncture may be a cost-effective treatment option for this group, with a cost-per-QALY of £6,500. CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture as an adjunct to usual care is not a cost-effective option for the whole IBS population; however it may be cost-effective for those with more severe irritable bowel syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN08827905.