Cost-effectiveness of behavioral activation compared to treatment as usual for depressed older adults in primary care: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Depression in older adults is associated with decreased quality of life and increased utilization of healthcare services. Behavioral activation (BA) is an effective treatment for late-life depression, but the cost-effectiveness compared to treatment as usual (TAU) is unknown. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed alongside a cluster randomized controlled multicenter trial including 161 older adults (≥65 years) with moderate to severe depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥ 10). Outcome measures were depression (response on the QIDS-SR), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and societal costs. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Cost and effect differences were estimated using bivariate linear regression models, and statistical uncertainty was estimated with bootstrapping. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed the probability of cost-effectiveness at different ceiling ratios. RESULTS: Societal costs were statistically non-significantly lower in BA compared to TAU (mean difference (MD) -€485, 95 % CI -3861 to 2792). There were no significant differences in response on the QIDS-SR (MD 0.085, 95 % CI -0.015 to 0.19), and QALYs (MD 0.026, 95 % CI -0.0037 to 0.055). On average, BA was dominant over TAU (i.e., more effective and less expensive), although the probability of dominance was only 0.60 from the societal perspective and 0.85 from the health care perspective for both QIDS-SR response and QALYs. DISCUSSION: Although the results suggest that BA is dominant over TAU, there was considerable uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness estimates which precludes firm conclusions.

Behavioural Activation versus Treatment as Usual for Depressed Older Adults in Primary Care: A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Effective non-pharmacological treatment options for depression in older adults are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of behavioural activation (BA) by mental health nurses (MHNs) for depressed older adults in primary care compared with treatment as usual (TAU) was evaluated. METHODS: In this multicentre cluster-randomised controlled trial, 59 primary care centres (PCCs) were randomised to BA and TAU. Consenting older (≥65 years) adults (n = 161) with clinically relevant symptoms of depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) participated. Interventions were an 8-week individual MHN-led BA programme and unrestricted TAU in which general practitioners followed national guidelines. The primary outcome was self-reported depression (QIDS-SR16) at 9 weeks and 3, 6, 9, and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Data of 96 participants from 21 PCCs in BA and 65 participants from 16 PCCs in TAU, recruited between July 4, 2016, and September 21, 2020, were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. At post-treatment, BA participants reported significantly lower severity of depressive symptoms than TAU participants (QIDS-SR16 difference = -2.77, 95% CI = -4.19 to -1.35), p < 0.001; between-group effect size = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.42-1.38). This difference persisted up to the 3-month follow-up (QIDS-SR16 difference = -1.53, 95% CI = -2.81 to -0.26, p = 0.02; between-group effect size = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.07-0.92) but not up to the 12-month follow-up [QIDS-SR16 difference = -0.89 (-2.49 to 0.71)], p = 0.28; between-group effect size = 0.29 (95% CI = -0.82 to 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: BA led to a greater symptom reduction of depressive symptoms in older adults, compared to TAU in primary care, at post-treatment and 3-month follow-up, but not at 6- to 12-month follow-up.

Behavioural Activation for Social IsoLation (BASIL+) trial (Behavioural activation to mitigate depression and loneliness among older people with long-term conditions): Protocol for a fully-powered pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Depression is a leading mental health problem worldwide. People with long-term conditions are at increased risk of experiencing depression. The COVID-19 pandemic led to strict social restrictions being imposed across the UK population. Social isolation can have negative consequences on the physical and mental wellbeing of older adults. In the Behavioural Activation in Social IsoLation (BASIL+) trial we will test whether a brief psychological intervention (based on Behavioural Activation), delivered remotely, can mitigate depression and loneliness in older adults with long-term conditions during isolation. METHODS: We will conduct a two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial across several research sites, to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the BASIL+ intervention. Participants will be recruited via participating general practices across England and Wales. Participants must be aged ≥65 with two or more long-term conditions, or a condition that may indicate they are within a 'clinically extremely vulnerable' group in relation to COVID-19, and have scored ≥5 on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), to be eligible for inclusion. Randomisation will be 1:1, stratified by research site. Intervention participants will receive up to eight intervention sessions delivered remotely by trained BASIL+ Support Workers and supported by a self-help booklet. Control participants will receive usual care, with additional signposting to reputable sources of self-help and information, including advice on keeping mentally and physically well. A qualitative process evaluation will also be undertaken to explore the acceptability of the BASIL+ intervention, as well as barriers and enablers to integrating the intervention into participants' existing health and care support, and the impact of the intervention on participants' mood and general wellbeing in the context of the COVID-19 restrictions. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with intervention participants, participant's caregivers/supportive others and BASIL+ Support Workers. Outcome data will be collected at one, three, and 12 months post-randomisation. Clinical and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms at the three-month follow up, measured by the PHQ9. Secondary outcomes include loneliness, social isolation, anxiety, quality of life, and a bespoke health services use questionnaire. DISCUSSION: This study is the first large-scale trial evaluating a brief Behavioural Activation intervention in this population, and builds upon the results of a successful external pilot trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov identifier ISRCTN63034289, registered on 5th February 2021.

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.

Behavioural activation to prevent depression and loneliness among socially isolated older people with long-term conditions: The BASIL COVID-19 pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults, including those with long-term conditions (LTCs), are vulnerable to social isolation. They are likely to have become more socially isolated during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, often due to advice to "shield" to protect them from infection. This places them at particular risk of depression and loneliness. There is a need for brief scalable psychosocial interventions to mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation. Behavioural activation (BA) is a credible candidate intervention, but a trial is needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook an external pilot parallel randomised trial (ISRCTN94091479) designed to test recruitment, retention and engagement with, and the acceptability and preliminary effects of the intervention. Participants aged ≥65 years with 2 or more LTCs were recruited in primary care and randomised by computer and with concealed allocation between June and October 2020. BA was offered to intervention participants (n = 47), and control participants received usual primary care (n = 49). Assessment of outcome was made blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was depression severity (measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)). We also measured health-related quality of life (measured by the Short Form (SF)-12v2 mental component scale (MCS) and physical component scale (PCS)), anxiety (measured by the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7)), perceived social and emotional loneliness (measured by the De Jong Gierveld Scale: 11-item loneliness scale). Outcome was measured at 1 and 3 months. The mean age of participants was aged 74 years (standard deviation (SD) 5.5) and they were mostly White (n = 92, 95.8%), and approximately two-thirds of the sample were female (n = 59, 61.5%). Remote recruitment was possible, and 45/47 (95.7%) randomised to the intervention completed 1 or more sessions (median 6 sessions) out of 8. A total of 90 (93.8%) completed the 1-month follow-up, and 86 (89.6%) completed the 3-month follow-up, with similar rates for control (1 month: 45/49 and 3 months 44/49) and intervention (1 month: 45/47and 3 months: 42/47) follow-up. Between-group comparisons were made using a confidence interval (CI) approach, and by adjusting for the covariate of interest at baseline. At 1 month (the primary clinical outcome point), the median number of completed sessions for people receiving the BA intervention was 3, and almost all participants were still receiving the BA intervention. The between-group comparison for the primary clinical outcome at 1 month was an adjusted between-group mean difference of -0.50 PHQ-9 points (95% CI -2.01 to 1.01), but only a small number of participants had completed the intervention at this point. At 3 months, the PHQ-9 adjusted mean difference (AMD) was 0.19 (95% CI -1.36 to 1.75). When we examined loneliness, the adjusted between-group difference in the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale at 1 month was 0.28 (95% CI -0.51 to 1.06) and at 3 months -0.87 (95% CI -1.56 to -0.18), suggesting evidence of benefit of the intervention at this time point. For anxiety, the GAD adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.20 (-1.33, 1.73) and at 3 months 0.31 (-1.08, 1.70). For the SF-12 (physical component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.34 (-4.17, 4.85) and at 3 months 0.11 (-4.46, 4.67). For the SF-12 (mental component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 1.91 (-2.64, 5.15) and at 3 months 1.26 (-2.64, 5.15). Participants who withdrew had minimal depressive symptoms at entry. There were no adverse events. The Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation (BASIL) study had 2 main limitations. First, we found that the intervention was still being delivered at the prespecified primary outcome point, and this fed into the design of the main trial where a primary outcome of 3 months is now collected. Second, this was a pilot trial and was not designed to test between-group differences with high levels of statistical power. Type 2 errors are likely to have occurred, and a larger trial is now underway to test for robust effects and replicate signals of effectiveness in important secondary outcomes such as loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that BA is a credible intervention to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 isolation for older adults. We demonstrated that it is feasible to undertake a trial of BA. The intervention can be delivered remotely and at scale, but should be reserved for older adults with evidence of depressive symptoms. The significant reduction in loneliness is unlikely to be a chance finding, and replication will be explored in a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN94091479.

Innovations in Practice: A randomised controlled feasibility trial of Behavioural Activation as a treatment for young people with depression.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural Activation (BA) treatment effectively reduces symptoms of depression in adults and is more cost-effective than more complex therapies. Two recent systematic reviews of BA for depression in young people highlighted the need for more studies in this area. METHODS: In order to evaluate the acceptability of BA treatment for adolescents with depression and the feasibility of conducting a trial of this intervention in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), 22 patients from across three sites were randomised to BA or usual CAMHS care. Existing CAMHS staff were trained to deliver the manualised intervention via a brief course. Following treatment, young people and their parents/carers were asked to complete a feedback survey. Symptoms and functioning were assessed at 3- and 6-month follow-up. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ref: ISRCTN52147450; https://www.isrctn.com/). RESULTS: Recruitment targets were achieved through screening large numbers of CAMHS service users. Intervention adherence by the participating adolescents was high (median number of completed BA sessions was seven out of a total of eight). There were tentative suggestions of improvements following treatment; a large change in a positive direction for the BA group, but not for usual care, was observed by visual comparisons of mean scores on measures of depression, self-esteem and functioning. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that BA in this setting is acceptable and warrants evaluation via a fully powered randomised controlled trial.

Behavioural activation in nursing homes to treat depression (BAN-Dep): study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Depression is a common disorder among older people living in residential aged care facilities. Several trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of behavioural therapies in treating depressive symptoms in older adults living in the community and in residential aged care. Behavioural Activation is demonstrably effective even when delivered by non-specialists (staff without formal psychological training), although strategies for adapting its use in residential aged care facilities are yet to be explored. This study will determine whether training residential care staff in the use of a structured Behavioural Activation programme is more effective at decreasing depressive symptoms among older residents than internet-based training about depression recognition and management alone. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The behavioural activation in nursing homes to treat depression (BAN-Dep) trial is a pragmatic two-arm parallel clustered randomised controlled trial. It will recruit 666 residents aged 60 or older from 100 residential aged care facilities, which will be randomly assigned to the Behavioural Activation or control intervention. Staff in both treatment groups will be encouraged to complete the Beyondblue Professional Education to Aged Care e-learning programme to improve their recognition of and ability to respond to depression in older adults. Selected staff from intervention facilities will undergo additional training to deliver an 8-module Behavioural Activation programme to residents with subthreshold symptoms of depression-they will receive ongoing Mental support from trained Behavioural Activation therapists. Outcome measures will be collected by blind research officer at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 is the primary outcome measure of the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial will comply with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki for Human Rights and is overseen by the University of Western Australia (reference RA/4/20/4234) and Melbourne Health (reference number HREC/18/MH/47) Ethics Committees. The results of this research project will be disseminated through publications and/or presentations in a variety of media to health professionals, academics, clinicians and the public. Only de-identified group data will be presented. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12618000634279.

CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depression (CASPER plus): a multicentred randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Depression in older adults is common and is associated with poor quality of life, increased morbidity and early mortality, and increased health and social care use. Collaborative care, a low-intensity intervention for depression that is shown to be effective in working-age adults, has not yet been evaluated in older people with depression who are managed in UK primary care. The CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs (CASPER) plus trial fills the evidence gap identified by the most recent guidelines on depression management. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with major depressive disorder in primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Participants were automatically randomised by computer, by the York Trials Unit Randomisation Service, on a 1 : 1 basis using simple unstratified randomisation after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Blinding was not possible. SETTING: Sixty-nine general practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 485 participants aged ≥ 65 years with major depressive disorder. INTERVENTIONS: A low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, including behavioural activation, delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual general practitioner (GP) care. The control arm received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity and caseness at 12 and 18 months, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-2 items, a medication questionnaire, objective data and adverse events. Participants were followed up at 12 and 18 months. RESULTS: In total, 485 participants were randomised (collaborative care, n = 249; usual care, n = 236), with 390 participants (80%: collaborative care, 75%; usual care, 86%) followed up at 4 months, 358 participants (74%: collaborative care, 70%; usual care, 78%) followed up at 12 months and 344 participants (71%: collaborative care, 67%; usual care, 75%) followed up at 18 months. A total of 415 participants were included in primary analysis (collaborative care, n = 198; usual care, n = 217), which revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care at the primary end point at 4 months [8.98 vs. 10.90 score points, mean difference 1.92 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.99 score points; p < 0.001], equivalent to a standard effect size of 0.34. However, treatment differences were not maintained in the longer term (at 12 months: 0.19 score points, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.29 score points; p = 0.741; at 18 months: < 0.01 score points, 95% CI -1.12 to 1.12 score points; p = 0.997). The study recorded details of all serious adverse events (SAEs), which consisted of 'unscheduled hospitalisation', 'other medically important condition' and 'death'. No SAEs were related to the intervention. Collaborative care showed a small but non-significant increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 18-month period, with a higher cost. Overall, the mean cost per incremental QALY for collaborative care compared with usual care was £26,016; however, for participants attending six or more sessions, collaborative care appears to represent better value for money (£9876/QALY). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations are identified at different stages: design (blinding unfeasible, potential contamination), process (relatively low overall consent rate, differential attrition/retention rates) and analysis (no baseline health-care resource cost or secondary/social care data). CONCLUSION: Collaborative care was effective for older people with case-level depression across a range of outcomes in the short term though the reduction in depression severity was not maintained over the longer term of 12 or 18 months. Participants who received six or more sessions of collaborative care did benefit substantially more than those who received fewer treatment sessions but this difference was not statistically significant. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for future research include investigating the longer-term effect of the intervention. Depression is a recurrent disorder and it would be useful to assess its impact on relapse and the prevention of future case-level depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45842879. 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. 21, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost and Outcome of BehaviouRal Activation (COBRA): a randomised controlled trial of behavioural activation versus cognitive-behavioural therapy for depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common, debilitating and costly disorder. The best-evidenced psychological therapy - cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) - is complex and costly. A simpler therapy, behavioural activation (BA), may be an effective alternative. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for depressed adults at 12 and 18 months' follow-up, and to investigate the processes of treatments. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial stratified by depression severity, antidepressant use and recruitment site, with embedded process evaluation; and randomisation by remote computer-generated allocation. SETTING: Three community mental health services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with major depressive disorder (MDD) recruited from primary care and psychological therapy services. INTERVENTIONS: BA delivered by NHS junior mental health workers (MHWs); CBT by NHS psychological therapists. OUTCOMES: Primary: depression severity (as measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PHQ-9) at 12 months. Secondary: MDD status; number of depression-free days; anxiety (as measured via the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7); health-related quality of life (as measured via the Short Form questionnaire-36 items) at 6, 12 and 18 months; and PHQ-9 at 6 and 18 months, all collected by assessors blinded to treatment allocation. Non-inferiority margin was 1.9 PHQ-9 points. We undertook intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. We explored cost-effectiveness by collecting direct treatment and other health- and social-care costs and calculating quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at 18 months. RESULTS: We recruited 440 participants (BA, n = 221; CBT, n = 219); 175 (79%) BA and 189 (86%) CBT participants provided ITT data and 135 (61%) BA and 151 (69%) CBT participants provided PP data. At 12 months we found that BA was non-inferior to CBT {ITT: CBT 8.4 PHQ-9 points [standard deviation (SD) 7.5 PHQ-9 points], BA 8.4 PHQ-9 points (SD 7.0 PHQ-9 points), mean difference 0.1 PHQ-9 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3 to 1.5 PHQ-9 points, p = 0.89; PP: CBT 7.9 PHQ-9 points (SD 7.3 PHQ-9 points), BA 7.8 PHQ-9 points (SD 6.5 PHQ-9 points), mean difference 0.0 PHQ-9 points, 95% CI -1.5 to 1.6 PHQ-9 points, p = 0.99}. We found no differences in secondary outcomes. We found a significant difference in mean intervention costs (BA, £975; CBT, £1235; p < 0.001), but no differences in non-intervention (hospital, community health, social care and medication costs) or total (non-intervention plus intervention) costs. Costs were lower and QALY outcomes better in the BA group, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -£6865. The probability of BA being cost-effective compared with CBT was almost 80% at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's preferred willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. There were no trial-related adverse events. LIMITATIONS: In this pragmatic trial many depressed participants in both groups were also taking antidepressant medication, although most had been doing so for a considerable time before entering the trial. Around one-third of participants chose not to complete a PP dose of treatment, a finding common in both psychotherapy trials and routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: We found that BA is as effective as CBT, more cost-effective and can be delivered by MHWs with no professional training in psychological therapies. FUTURE WORK: Settings and countries with a paucity of professionally qualified psychological therapists, might choose to investigate the delivery of effective psychological therapy for depression without the need to develop an extensive and costly professional infrastructure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954. 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. 21, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (COBRA): a qualitative process evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To explore participant views on acceptability, mechanisms of change and impact of behavioural activation (BA) delivered by junior mental health workers (MHWs) versus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by professional psychotherapists. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interviews analysed using a framework approach. PARTICIPANTS: 36 participants with major depressive disorder purposively sampled from a randomised controlled trial of BA versus CBT (the COBRA trial). SETTING: Primary care psychological therapies services in Devon, Durham and Leeds, UK. RESULTS: Elements of therapy considered to be beneficial included its length and regularity, the opportunity to learn and not dwelling on the past. Homework was an important, although challenging aspect of treatment. Therapists were perceived as experts who played an important role in treatment. For some participants the most important element of therapy was having someone to talk to, but for others the specific factors associated with BA and CBT were crucial, with behavioural change considered important for participants in both treatments, and cognitive change unsurprisingly discussed more by those receiving CBT. Both therapies were considered to have a positive impact on symptoms of depression and other areas of life including feelings about themselves, self-care, work and relationships. Barriers to therapy included work, family life and emotional challenges. A subset (n=2) of BA participants commented that therapy felt too simple, and MHWs could be perceived as inexperienced. Many participants saw therapy as a learning experience, providing them with tools to take away, with work on relapse prevention essential. CONCLUSIONS: Despite barriers for some participants, BA and CBT were perceived to have many benefits, to have brought about cognitive and behavioural change and to produce improvements in many domains of participants' lives. To optimise the delivery of BA, inexperienced junior MHWs should be supported through good quality training and ongoing supervision. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27473954, 09/12/2011.

CollAborative care and active surveillance for Screen-Positive EldeRs with subthreshold depression (CASPER): a multicentred randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce the burden of illness and personal suffering associated with depression in older adults have focused on those with more severe depressive syndromes. Less attention has been paid to those with mild disorders/subthreshold depression, but these patients also suffer significant impairments in their quality of life and level of functioning. There is currently no clear evidence-based guidance regarding treatment for this patient group. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a low-intensity intervention of collaborative care for primary care older adults who screened positive for subthreshold depression. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with a qualitative study embedded within the pilot. Randomisation occurred after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. SETTING: Thirty-two general practitioner (GP) practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 705 participants aged ≥ 75 years during the pilot phase and ≥ 65 years during the main trial with subthreshold depression. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the intervention group received a low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, which included behavioural activation delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual GP care. Control-arm participants received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was a self-reported measure of depression severity, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items PHQ-9 score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder seven-item scale, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale two-item version, a medication questionnaire and objective data. Participants were followed up for 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 705 participants were randomised (collaborative care n = 344, usual care n = 361), with 586 participants (83%; collaborative care 76%, usual care 90%) followed up at 4 months and 519 participants (74%; collaborative care 68%, usual care 79%) followed up at 12 months. Attrition was markedly greater in the collaborative care arm. Model estimates at the primary end point of 4 months revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care compared with usual care [mean difference 1.31 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.95 score points; p < 0.001]. The difference equates to a standard effect size of 0.30, for which the trial was powered. Treatment differences measured by the PHQ-9 were maintained at 12 months' follow-up (mean difference 1.33 score points, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.10 score points; p = 0.001). Base-case cost-effectiveness analysis found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £9633 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). On average, participants allocated to collaborative care displayed significantly higher QALYs than those allocated to the control group (annual difference in adjusted QALYs of 0.044, 95% bias-corrected CI 0.015 to 0.072; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care has been shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective for older adults with subthreshold depression and to reduce the proportion of people who go on to develop case-level depression at 12 months. This intervention could feasibly be delivered in the NHS at an acceptable cost-benefit ratio. Important future work would include investigating the longer-term effect of collaborative care on the CASPER population, which could be conducted by introducing an extension to follow-up, and investigating the impact of collaborative care on managing multimorbidities in people with subthreshold depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02202951. 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. 21, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost and Outcome of Behavioural Activation versus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression (COBRA): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common, debilitating, and costly disorder. Many patients request psychological therapy, but the best-evidenced therapy-cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-is complex and costly. A simpler therapy-behavioural activation (BA)-might be as effective and cheaper than is CBT. We aimed to establish the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for adults with depression. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults aged 18 years or older meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria for major depressive disorder from primary care and psychological therapy services in Devon, Durham, and Leeds (UK). We excluded people who were receiving psychological therapy, were alcohol or drug dependent, were acutely suicidal or had attempted suicide in the previous 2 months, or were cognitively impaired, or who had bipolar disorder or psychosis or psychotic symptoms. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) remotely using computer-generated allocation (minimisation used; stratified by depression severity [Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score of <19 vs ≥19], antidepressant use, and recruitment site) to BA from junior mental health workers or CBT from psychological therapists. Randomisation done at the Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit was concealed from investigators. Treatment was given open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome was depression symptoms according to the PHQ-9 at 12 months. We analysed all those who were randomly allocated and had complete data (modified intention to treat [mITT]) and also all those who were randomly allocated, had complete data, and received at least eight treatment sessions (per protocol [PP]). We analysed safety in the mITT population. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9 PHQ-9 points. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN27473954. FINDINGS: Between Sept 26, 2012, and April 3, 2014, we randomly allocated 221 (50%) participants to BA and 219 (50%) to CBT. 175 (79%) participants were assessable for the primary outcome in the mITT population in the BA group compared with 189 (86%) in the CBT group, whereas 135 (61%) were assessable in the PP population in the BA group compared with 151 (69%) in the CBT group. BA was non-inferior to CBT (mITT: CBT 8·4 PHQ-9 points [SD 7·5], BA 8·4 PHQ-9 points [7·0], mean difference 0·1 PHQ-9 points [95% CI -1·3 to 1·5], p=0·89; PP: CBT 7·9 PHQ-9 points [7·3]; BA 7·8 [6·5], mean difference 0·0 PHQ-9 points [-1·5 to 1·6], p=0·99). Two (1%) non-trial-related deaths (one [1%] multidrug toxicity in the BA group and one [1%] cancer in the CBT group) and 15 depression-related, but not treatment-related, serious adverse events (three in the BA group and 12 in the CBT group) occurred in three [2%] participants in the BA group (two [1%] patients who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed) and eight (4%) participants in the CBT group (seven [4%] who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed). INTERPRETATION: We found that BA, a simpler psychological treatment than CBT, can be delivered by junior mental health workers with less intensive and costly training, with no lesser effect than CBT. Effective psychological therapy for depression can be delivered without the need for costly and highly trained professionals. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

CASPER plus (CollAborative care in Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depressive disorder): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression accounts for the greatest disease burden of all mental health disorders, contributes heavily to healthcare costs, and by 2020 is set to become the second largest cause of global disability. Although 10% to 16% of people aged 65 years and over are likely to experience depressive symptoms, the condition is under-diagnosed and often inadequately treated in primary care. Later-life depression is associated with chronic illness and disability, cognitive impairment and social isolation. With a progressively ageing population it becomes increasingly important to refine strategies to identity and manage depression in older people. Currently, management may be limited to the prescription of antidepressants where there may be poor concordance; older people may lack awareness of psychosocial interventions and general practitioners may neglect to offer this treatment option. METHODS/DESIGN: CASPER Plus is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care intervention for individuals aged 65 years and over experiencing moderate to severe depression. Selected practices in the North of England identify potentially eligible patients and invite them to participate in the study. A diagnostic interview is carried out and participants with major depressive disorder are randomised to either collaborative care or usual care. The recruitment target is 450 participants. The intervention, behavioural activation and medication management in a collaborative care framework, has been adapted to meet the complex needs of older people. It is delivered over eight to 10 weekly sessions by a case manager liaising with general practitioners. The trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of collaborative care in addition to usual GP care versus usual GP care alone. The primary clinical outcome, depression severity, will be measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at baseline, 4, 12 and 18 months. Cost effectiveness analysis will assess health-related quality of life using the SF-12 and EQ-5D and will examine cost-consequences of collaborative care. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken to explore acceptability, gauge the extent to which the intervention is implemented and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial. DISCUSSION: Results will add to existing evidence and a positive outcome may lead to the commissioning of this model of service in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45842879 (24 July 2012).

Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behaviour therapy for depression (COBRA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. However, CBT is a complex therapy that requires highly trained and qualified practitioners, and its scalability is therefore limited by the costs of training and employing sufficient therapists to meet demand. Behavioural activation (BA) is a psychological treatment for depression that may be an effective alternative to CBT and, because it is simpler, might also be delivered by less highly trained and specialised mental health workers. METHODS/DESIGN: COBRA is a two-arm, non-inferiority, patient-level randomised controlled trial, including clinical, economic, and process evaluations comparing CBT delivered by highly trained professional therapists to BA delivered by junior professional or para-professional mental health workers to establish whether the clinical effectiveness of BA is non-inferior to CBT and if BA is cost effective compared to CBT. Four hundred and forty patients with major depressive disorder will be recruited through screening in primary care. We will analyse for non-inferiority in per-protocol and intention-to-treat populations. Our primary outcome will be severity of depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be clinically significant change and severity of depression at 18 months, and anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (Short-Form Health Survey-36) at 12 and 18 months. Our economic evaluation will take the United Kingdom National Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective to include costs of the interventions, health and social care services used, plus productivity losses. Cost-effectiveness will explored in terms of quality-adjusted life years using the EuroQol-5D measure of health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: The clinical and economic outcomes of this trial will provide the evidence to help policy makers, clinicians and guideline developers decide on the merits of including BA as a first-line treatment of depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954.

Cost utility of behavioural activation delivered by the non-specialist.

Behavioural activation by non-specialists appears effective in the treatment of depression. We examined incremental cost-effectiveness of behavioural activation (n = 24) v. treatment as usual (n = 23) in a randomised controlled trial. Intention-to-treat analyses indicated a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference in favour of behavioural activation of 0.20 (95% CI 0.01-0.39, P = 0.042), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £5756 per QALY and a 97% probability that behavioural activation is more cost-effective at a threshold value of £20,000. Results are promising for dissemination of behavioural activation but require replication in a larger study.

Behavioural activation delivered by the non-specialist: phase II randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural activation appears as effective as cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) in the treatment of depression. If equally effective, then behavioural activation may be the preferred treatment option because it may be suitable for delivery by therapists with less training. This is the first randomised controlled trial to look at this possibility. AIMS: To examine whether generic mental health workers can deliver effective behavioural activation as a step-three high-intensity intervention. METHOD: A randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN27045243) comparing behavioural activation (n=24) with treatment as usual (n=23) in primary care. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analyses indicated a difference in favour of behavioural activation of -15.79 (95% CI -24.55 to -7.02) on the Beck Depression Inventory-II and Work and Social Adjustment Scale (mean difference -11.12, 95% CI -17.53 to -4.70). CONCLUSIONS: Effective behavioural activation appears suitable for delivery by generic mental health professionals without previous experience as therapists. Large-scale trial comparisons with an active comparator (CBT) are needed.