Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a specialist depression service versus usual specialist mental health care to manage persistent depression: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Persistent moderate or severe unipolar depression is common and expensive to treat. Clinical guidelines recommend combined pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. Such treatments can take up to 1 year to show an effect, but no trials of suitable duration have been done. We investigated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of outpatient-based, specialist depression services (SDS) versus treatment as usual (TAU) on depression symptoms and function. METHODS: We did a multicentre, single-blind, patient-level, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT), as part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) study, in three mental health outpatient settings in England. Eligible participants were in secondary care, were older than 18 years, had unipolar depression (with a current major depressive episode, a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS17] score of ≥16, and a Global Assessment of Function [GAF] score of ≤60), and had not responded to 6 months or more of treatment for depression. Randomisation was stratified by site with allocation conveyed to a trial administrator, with research assessors masked to outcome. Patients were randomised (1:1) using a computer-generated pseudo-random code with random permuted blocks of varying sizes of two, four, or six to either SDS (collaborative care approach between psychiatrists and cognitive behavioural therapists for 12 months, followed by graduated transfer of care up to 15 months) or to the TAU group. Intention-to-treat primary outcome measures were changes in HDRS17 and GAF scores between baseline and 6, 12, and 18 months' follow-up. We will separately publish follow-up outcomes for months 24 and 36. Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness were examined from health and social care persp ectives at 18 months, as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01047124) and the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN10963342); the trial has ended. FINDINGS: 307 patients were assessed for eligibility between Dec 21, 2009, and Oct 31, 2012. 94 patients were assigned to TAU and 93 patients to SDS, and were included in intention-to-treat analyses. The changes from baseline to 6 months in HDRS17 and GAF scores did not significantly differ between treatment groups (mean change difference in HDRS17 score -1·01 [95% CI -3·30 to 1·28], p=0·385; and in GAF score 1·33 [-2·92 to 5·57], p=0·538). Primary outcome data were available for 134 (72%) patients at 12 months. We noted no differences at 12 months' follow-up between SDS and TAU for mean HDRS17 score (14·8 [SD 7·9] in the SDS group vs 17·2 [7·3] in the TAU group, p=0·056) or GAF score (60·4 [11·7] vs 55·8 [12·7], p=0·064), and the changes from baseline to 12 months in HDRS17 and GAF scores did not significantly differ between treatment groups (mean change difference in HDRS17 score -2·45 [95% CI -5·04 to 0·14], p=0·064; and in GAF score 4·12 [-0·11 to 8·35], p=0·056). The mean change in HDRS17 score from baseline to 18 months was significantly improved in the SDS group compared with the TAU group (13·6 [SD 8·8] in the SDS group vs 16·1 [6·6] in the TAU group; mean change difference -2·96 [95% CI -5·33 to -0·59], p=0·015), but the GAF scores showed no significant differences between the groups (61·2 [SD 13·0] vs 57·7 [11·9]; mean change difference 3·82 [-9·3 to 8·57], p=0·113). We reported no deaths, but one (1%) patient was admitted to hospital for myocardial infarction, and three episodes of self-harm were reported in three (2%) patients (two receiving TAU, one receiving SDS care). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SDS versus TAU was £43 603 per quality-adjusted life-year. INTERPRETATION: Compared with usual specialist mental health secondary care, SDS might improve depression symptoms for patients with persistent moderate to severe depression, but functional outcomes and economic benefits are equivocal. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, UK Medical Research Council, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, University of Nottingham.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression in primary care: the CoBalT randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Only one-third of patients with depression respond fully to treatment with antidepressant medication. However, there is little robust evidence to guide the management of those whose symptoms are 'treatment resistant'. OBJECTIVE: The CoBalT trial examined the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as an adjunct to usual care (including pharmacotherapy) for primary care patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) compared with usual care alone. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre individually randomised controlled trial with follow-up at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. A subset took part in a qualitative study investigating views and experiences of CBT, reasons for completing/not completing therapy, and usual care for TRD. SETTING: General practices in Bristol, Exeter and Glasgow, and surrounding areas. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18-75 years who had TRD [on antidepressants for ≥ 6 weeks, had adhered to medication, Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd version (BDI-II) score of ≥ 14 and fulfilled the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth edition criteria for depression]. Individuals were excluded who (1) had bipolar disorder/psychosis or major alcohol/substance abuse problems; (2) were unable to complete the questionnaires; or (3) were pregnant, as were those currently receiving CBT/other psychotherapy/secondary care for depression, or who had received CBT in the past 3 years. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised, using a computer-generated code, to usual care or CBT (12-18 sessions) in addition to usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 'response', defined as ≥ 50% reduction in depressive symptoms (BDI-II score) at 6 months compared with baseline. Secondary outcomes included BDI-II score as a continuous variable, remission of symptoms (BDI-II score of < 10), quality of life, anxiety and antidepressant use at 6 and 12 months. Data on health and social care use, personal costs, and time off work were collected at 6 and 12 months. Costs from these three perspectives were reported using a cost-consequence analysis. A cost-utility analysis compared health and social care costs with quality adjusted life-years. RESULTS: A total of 469 patients were randomised (intervention: n = 234; usual care: n = 235), with 422 participants (90%) and 396 (84%) followed up at 6 and 12 months. Ninety-five participants (46.1%) in the intervention group met criteria for 'response' at 6 months compared with 46 (21.6%) in the usual-care group {odds ratio [OR] 3.26 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.10 to 5.06], p < 0.001}. In repeated measures analyses using data from 6 and 12 months, the OR for 'response' was 2.89 (95% CI 2.03 to 4.10, p < 0.001) and for a secondary 'remission' outcome (BDI-II score of < 10) 2.74 (95% CI 1.82 to 4.13, p < 0.001). The mean cost of CBT per participant was £ 910, the incremental health and social care cost £ 850, the incremental QALY gain 0.057 and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £ 14,911. Forty participants were interviewed. Patients described CBT as challenging but helping them to manage their depression; listed social, emotional and practical reasons for not completing treatment; and described usual care as mainly taking medication. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who have not responded to antidepressants, augmenting usual care with CBT is effective in reducing depressive symptoms, and these effects, including outcomes reflecting remission, are maintained over 12 months. The intervention was cost-effective based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Patients may experience CBT as difficult but effective. Further research should evaluate long-term effectiveness, as this would have major implications for the recommended treatment of depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38231611.

Cost-effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression in primary care: economic evaluation of the CoBalT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is expensive to treat, but providing ineffective treatment is more expensive. Such is the case for many patients who do not respond to antidepressant medication. AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) plus usual care for primary care patients with treatment-resistant depression compared with usual care alone. METHOD: Economic evaluation at 12 months alongside a randomised controlled trial. Cost-effectiveness assessed using a cost-consequences framework comparing cost to the health and social care provider, patients and society, with a range of outcomes. Cost-utility analysis comparing health and social care costs with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The mean cost of CBT per participant was £910. The difference in QALY gain between the groups was 0.057, equivalent to 21 days a year of good health. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £14 911 (representing a 74% probability of the intervention being cost-effective at the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20 000 per QALY). Loss of earnings and productivity costs were substantial but there was no evidence of a difference between intervention and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of CBT to usual care is cost-effective in patients who have not responded to antidepressants. Primary care physicians should therefore be encouraged to refer such individuals for CBT.

Cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for primary care based patients with treatment resistant depression: results of the CoBalT randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Only a third of patients with depression respond fully to antidepressant medication but little evidence exists regarding the best next-step treatment for those whose symptoms are treatment resistant. The CoBalT trial aimed to examine the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as an adjunct to usual care (including pharmacotherapy) for primary care patients with treatment resistant depression compared with usual care alone. METHODS: This two parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial recruited 469 patients aged 18-75 years with treatment resistant depression (on antidepressants for ≥6 weeks, Beck depression inventory [BDI] score ≥14 and international classification of diseases [ICD]-10 criteria for depression) from 73 UK general practices. Participants were randomised, with a computer generated code (stratified by centre and minimised according to baseline BDI score, whether the general practice had a counsellor, previous treatment with antidepressants, and duration of present episode of depression) to one of two groups: usual care or CBT in addition to usual care, and were followed up for 12 months. Because of the nature of the intervention it was not possible to mask participants, general practitioners, CBT therapists, or researchers to the treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. The primary outcome was response, defined as at least 50% reduction in depressive symptoms (BDI score) at 6 months compared with baseline. This trial is registered, ISRCTN38231611. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2008, and Sept 30, 2010, we assigned 235 patients to usual care, and 234 to CBT plus usual care. 422 participants (90%) were followed up at 6 months and 396 (84%) at 12 months, finishing on Oct 31, 2011. 95 participants (46%) in the intervention group met criteria for response at 6 months compared with 46 (22%) in the usual care group (odds ratio 3·26, 95% CI 2·10-5·06, p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: Before this study, no evidence from large-scale randomised controlled trials was available for the effectiveness of augmentation of antidepressant medication with CBT as a next-step for patients whose depression has not responded to pharmacotherapy. Our study has provided robust evidence that CBT as an adjunct to usual care that includes antidepressants is an effective treatment, reducing depressive symptoms in this population. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment resistant depression in primary care: the CoBalT randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are often the first-line treatment for depression but only one third of patients respond fully to pharmacotherapy. This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for patients with treatment resistant depression in primary care. METHODS/DESIGN: CoBalT is a two parallel group multi-centre pragmatic RCT. Eligible participants were those who: (i) were aged 18-75years; (ii) were currently taking antidepressant medication (for at least 6weeks at an adequate dose); (iii) scored ≥14 on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II); (iv) had adhered to their medication; and (v) met ICD-10 criteria for depression (assessed using the Clinical Interview Schedule - revised version). Those who gave written informed consent were randomised to one of two treatment groups: usual care or usual care plus CBT. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms assessed using the BDI-II at 6months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes measured at 6 and 12months include quality of life, antidepressant use and health care utilisation. Outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: The CoBalT trial will provide evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of CBT as an adjunct to antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression that has not responded to pharmacotherapy. Given the move to widen access to 'talking therapies', the results of this study will be timely.

Randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of a specialist team for managing refractory unipolar depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Around 40 per cent of patients with unipolar depressive disorder who are treated in secondary care mental health services do not respond to first or second line treatments for depression. Such patients have 20 times the suicide rate of the general population and treatment response becomes harder to achieve and sustain the longer they remain depressed. Despite this there are no randomised controlled trials of community based service delivery interventions delivering both algorithm based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for patients with chronic depressive disorder in secondary care mental health services who remain moderately or severely depressed after six months treatment. Without such trials evidence based guidelines on services for such patients cannot be derived. METHODS/DESIGN: Single blind individually randomised controlled trial of a specialist depression disorder team (psychiatrist and psychotherapist jointly assessing and providing algorithm based drug and psychological treatment) versus usual secondary care treatment. We will recruit 174 patients with unipolar depressive disorder in secondary mental health services with a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score ≥ 16 and global assessment of function (GAF) ≤ 60 after ≥ 6 months treatment. The primary outcome measures will be the HDRS and GAF supplemented by economic analysis including the EQ5 D and analysis of barriers to care, implementation and the process of care. Audits to benchmark both treatment arms against national standards of care will aid the interpretation of the results of the study. DISCUSSION: This trial will be the first to assess the effectiveness and implementation of a community based specialist depression disorder team. The study has been specially designed as part of the CLAHRC Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire joint collaboration between university, health and social care organisations to provide information of direct relevance to decisions on commissioning, service provision and implementation.