Preliminary clinical and cost effectiveness of augmented depression therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of anhedonic depression (ADepT): a single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, pilot, randomised, controlled trial.

Background: Anhedonia (reduced interest/pleasure) symptoms and wellbeing deficits are core to depression and predict a poor prognosis. Current depression psychotherapies fail to target these features adequately, contributing to sub-optimal outcomes. Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT) has been developed to target anhedonia and wellbeing. We aimed to establish clinical and economic proof of concept for ADepT and to examine feasibility of a future definitive trial comparing ADepT to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). Methods: In this single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial, adults meeting diagnostic criteria for a current major depressive episode, scoring ≥10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and exhibiting anhedonic features (PHQ-9 item 1 ≥ 2) were recruited primarily from high intensity Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) service waiting lists in Devon, UK. Participants were randomised to receive 20 sessions of CBT or ADepT, using a mimimisation algorithm to balance depression severity and antidepressant use between groups. Treatment was delivered in an out-patient university-based specialist mood disorder clinic. Researcher-blinded assessments were completed at intake and six, 12, and 18 months. Co-primary outcomes were depression (PHQ-9) and wellbeing (Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale) at 6 months. Primary clinical proof-of-concept analyses were intention to treat. Feasibility (including safety) and health economic analyses used complete case data. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN85278228. Findings: Between 3/29/2017 and 7/31/2018, 82 individuals were recruited (102% of target sample) and 41 individuals were allocated to each arm. A minimum adequate treatment dose was completed by 36/41 (88%) of CBT and 35/41 (85%) of ADepT participants. There were two serious adverse events in each arm (primarily suicide attempts; none of which were judged to be trial- or treatment-related), with no other evidence of harms. Intake and six-month primary outcome data was available for 37/41 (90%) CBT participants and 32/41 (78%) ADepT participants. Between-group effects favoured ADepT over CBT for depression (meanΔ = -1.35, 95% CI = -3.70, 1.00, d = 0.23) and wellbeing (meanΔ = 2.64, 95% CI = -1.71, 6.99, d = 0.27). At 18 months, the advantage of ADepT over CBT was preserved and ADepT had a >80% probability of cost-effectiveness. Interpretation: These findings provide proof of concept for ADepT and warrant continuation to definitive trial. Funding: NIHR Career Development Fellowship.

Off-pump injectable versus on-pump conventional tissue valves for pulmonary valve replacement: the injectable valve implantation randomised trial (INVITE).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of injectable tissue pulmonary valve compared with standard pulmonary valve in patients requiring pulmonary valve replacement surgery. DESIGN: A multicentre, single-blind, parallel two-group randomised controlled trial. Participants were blind to their allocation. Follow-up continued for 6 months. Randomised allocations were generated by a computer using block randomisation, stratified by centre. SETTING: Two National Health Service secondary care centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: People aged 12-80 years requiring pulmonary valve replacement. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to injectable pulmonary valve replacement (IPVR) without cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) or standard pulmonary valve replacement (SPVR) with CPB. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was chest drainage volume over the first 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital clinical outcomes; valve and heart function 6 months postsurgery and health-related quality of life 6 weeks and 6 months postsurgery. RESULTS: Nineteen participants agreed to take part. Eleven were allocated to IPVR and eight to SPVR. The trial was stopped before the target sample size of 60 participants was reached due to challenges in recruitment. The primary analysis includes all randomised participants; there were no withdrawals. Chest drain volume 24 hours after surgery was on average 277.6 mL lower with IPVR (IPVR mean 340.0 mL; SPVR mean 633.8 mL; mean difference, -277.6; 95% CI, -484.0 to -71.2; p=0.005). There were no statistically significant differences in time to readiness for extubation (p=0.476), time to fitness for discharge (p=0.577) and time to first discharge from the intensive care unit (p=0.209). Six participants with IPVR required CPB. Safety profiles and quality of life scores were similar. CONCLUSIONS: IPVR reduced chest drain volume despite >50% of participants requiring CPB. There was no evidence of any other benefit of IPVR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23538073.

Evaluating Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While existing psychological treatments for depression are effective for many, a significant proportion of depressed individuals do not respond to current approaches and few remain well over the long-term. Anhedonia (a loss of interest or pleasure) is a core symptom of depression which predicts a poor prognosis but has been neglected by existing treatments. Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT) has been co-designed with service users to better target anhedonia alongside other features of depression. This mixed methods pilot trial aims to establish proof of concept for ADepT and to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a future definitive trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ADepT, compared to an evidence-based mainstream therapy (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy; CBT) in the acute treatment of depression, the prevention of subsequent depressive relapse, and the enhancement of wellbeing. METHODS: We aim to recruit 80 depressed participants and randomise them 1:1 to receive ADepT (15 weekly acute and 5 booster sessions in following year) or CBT (20 weekly acute sessions). Clinical and health economic assessments will take place at intake and at 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up. Reductions in PHQ-9 depression severity and increases in WEMWBS wellbeing at 6-month assessment (when acute treatment should be completed) are the co-primary outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative process evaluation will assess mechanism of action, implementation issues, and contextual moderating factors. To evaluate proof of concept, intake-post effect sizes and the proportion of individuals showing reliable and clinically significant change on outcome measures in each arm at each follow-up will be reported. To evaluate feasibility and acceptability, we will examine recruitment, retention, treatment completion, and data completeness rates and feedback from patients and therapists about their experience of study participation and therapy. Additionally, we will establish the cost of delivery of ADepT. DISCUSSION: We will proceed to definitive trial if any concerns about the safety, acceptability, feasibility, and proof of concept of ADepT and trial procedures can be rectified, and we recruit, retain, and collect follow-up data on at least 60% of the target sample. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCRTN85278228, registered 27/03/2017.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of adapted dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) for bipolar mood instability in primary care (ThrIVe-B programme): a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: In bipolar spectrum disorder, some individuals experience ongoing, frequent fluctuations in mood outside of affective episodes. There are currently no evidence-based psychological interventions designed to address this. This feasibility study is a phase II evaluation of a dialectical behavioural therapy-informed approach (Therapy for Inter-episode mood Variability in Bipolar [ThrIVe-B]). It seeks to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a future definitive trial evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of the ThrIVe-B programme. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients will be randomised 1:1 to either treatment as usual only (control arm) or the ThrIVe-B intervention plus treatment as usual (intervention arm). Follow-up points will be at 3, 6, 9 and 15 months after baseline, with 9 months as the primary end point for the candidate primary outcome measures. We aim to recruit 48 individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for a bipolar spectrum disorder and reporting frequent mood swings outside of acute episodes, through primary and secondary care services and self-referral. To evaluate feasibility and acceptability, we will examine recruitment and retention rates, completion rates for study measures and feedback from participants on their experience of study participation and therapy. DISCUSSION: Proceeding to a definitive trial will be indicated if the following criteria are met: (1) trial participation does not lead to serious negative consequences for our participants; (2) any serious concerns about the acceptability and feasibility of the trial procedures can be rectified prior to a definitive trial; (3) follow-up data at 9 months are available for at least 60% of participants; (4) at least 60% of patients in the ThrIVe-B arm complete treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN54234300 . Registered on 20 July 2017.

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.

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.

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-effectiveness of relapse-prevention cognitive therapy for bipolar disorder: 30-month study.

BACKGROUND: We have reported the advantageous clinical outcome of adding cognitive therapy to medication in the prevention of relapse of bipolar disorder. AIMS: This 30-month study compares the cost-effectiveness of cognitive therapy with standard care. METHOD: We randomly allocated 103 individuals with bipolar 1 disorder to standard treatment and cognitive therapy plus standard treatment. Service use and costs were measured at 3-month intervals and cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net-benefit approach. RESULTS: The group receiving cognitive therapy had significantly better clinical outcomes. The extra costs were offset by reduced service use elsewhere. The probability of cognitive therapy being cost-effective was high and robust to different therapy prices. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of cognitive therapy and mood stabilizers was superior to mood stabilizers alone in terms of clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness for those with frequent relapses of bipolar disorder.