Interventions for preventing relapse or recurrence of depression in primary health care settings: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to assess the efficacy of pharmacological and psychological interventions for preventing relapse or recurrence of depression in adults with depression in primary care. METHOD: Papers published from inception to January 28th 2014 were identified searching the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL. Randomized controlled trials of any pharmacological, psychological or psychosocial intervention or combination of interventions delivered in primary care settings were included, with relapse or recurrence of a depressive disorder as a main outcome. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: Only three studies with a small number of patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. None of the three randomized controlled trials included in our review showed a statistically significant superiority of an intervention for the prevention of depression relapse or recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to inform relapse or recurrence prevention strategies specifically in primary care.

Alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis of validation studies.

BACKGROUND: There is a strong rationale for clinicians to identify risky drinking among young people given the harms caused by alcohol. This systematic review evaluates the quality of evidence in the validation literature on alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people under 25. METHODS: Six electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; SSCI; HMIC; ADAI) were searched in May 2016 for published and grey literature. Full-text reports published in English since 1980 were included if they aimed to validate an alcohol screening or assessment measure in comparison with a previously validated alcohol measure. Risk of bias was assessed in studies surpassing a priori quality thresholds for predictive validity, internal and test-retest reliability using COSMIN and QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Thirty nine reports comprising 135 discrete validation studies were included. Summary estimates indicated that the screening instruments performed well - AUC 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88 to 0.93); sensitivity 0.98 (0.95 to 0.99); specificity 0.78 (0.74 to 0.82). Noting a paucity of validation evidence for existing assessment instruments, aggregated reliability estimates suggest a reliability of 0.81 (0.78 to 0.83) adjusted for 10 items. Risk of bias was high for both types of studies. CONCLUSIONS: The volume and quality of available evidence are superior for screening measures. It is recommended that clinicians use alcohol frequency or quantity items if asking a single question. If there is an opportunity to ask more questions either the 3-item AUDIT-C or the 10-item AUDIT are recommended. There is a need to develop new instruments to assess young people's alcohol-related problems.

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.

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.