Interventions to improve return to work in depressed people.

BACKGROUND: Work disability such as sickness absence is common in people with depression. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until April 4th 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of work-directed and clinical interventions for depressed people that included days of sickness absence or being off work as an outcome. We also analysed the effects on depression and work functioning. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the data and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to pool study results in studies we judged to be sufficiently similar.  MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we added 23 new studies. In total, we included 45 studies with 88 study arms, involving 12,109 participants with either a major depressive disorder or a high level of depressive symptoms. Risk of bias The most common types of bias risk were detection bias (27 studies) and attrition bias (22 studies), both for the outcome of sickness absence. Work-directed interventions Work-directed interventions combined with clinical interventions A combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces days of sickness absence within the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.12; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). This translates back to 0.5 fewer (95% CI -0.7 to -0.2) sick leave days in the past two weeks or 25 fewer days during one year (95% CI -37.5 to -11.8). The intervention does not lead to fewer persons being off work beyond one year follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; 2 studies, high-certainty evidence). The intervention may reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.01; 8 studies, low-certainty evidence) and probably has a small effect on work functioning (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.06; 5 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up.  Stand alone work-directed interventions A specific work-directed intervention alone may increase the number of sickness absence days compared with work-directed care as usual (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.74; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence) but probably does not lead to more people being off work within the first year of follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence) or beyond (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.10, 95% -0.30 CI to 0.10; 4 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up and there may be no effect on depressive symptoms beyond that time (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.49; 1 study, low-certainty evidence). The intervention may also not lead to better work functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.26; 1 study, low-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up.   Psychological interventions A psychological intervention, either face-to-face, or an E-mental health intervention, with or without professional guidance, may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.03; 9 studies, low-certainty evidence). It may also reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.15, 8 studies, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether these psychological interventions improve work ability (SMD -0.15 95% CI -0.46 to 0.57; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Psychological intervention combined with antidepressant medication Two studies compared the effect of a psychological intervention combined with antidepressants to antidepressants alone. One study combined psychodynamic therapy with tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) medication and another combined telephone-administered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). We are uncertain if this intervention reduces the number of sickness absence days (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.24; 2 studies, very low-certainty evidence) but found that there may be no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.12; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence). Antidepressant medication only Three studies compared the effectiveness of SSRI to selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medication on reducing sickness absence and yielded highly inconsistent results. Improved care Overall, interventions to improve care did not lead to fewer days of sickness absence, compared to care as usual (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). However, in studies with a low risk of bias, the intervention probably leads to fewer days of sickness absence in the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.05; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Improved care probably leads to fewer depressive symptoms (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.07; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) but may possibly lead to a decrease in work-functioning (SMD 0.5, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Exercise Supervised strength exercise may reduce sickness absence, compared to relaxation (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.68 to -0.54; one study, low-certainty evidence). However, aerobic exercise probably is not more effective than relaxation or stretching (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Both studies found no differences between the two conditions in depressive symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces the number of sickness absence days, but at the end of one year or longer follow-up, this does not lead to more people in the intervention group being at work. The intervention may also reduce depressive symptoms and probably increases work functioning more than care as usual. Specific work-directed interventions may not be more effective than usual work-directed care alone. Psychological interventions may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual. Interventions to improve clinical care probably lead to lower sickness absence and lower levels of depression, compared with care as usual. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on sickness absence of one antidepressant medication compared to another. Further research is needed to assess which combination of work-directed and clinical interventions works best.

Interventions to improve return to work in depressed people.

BACKGROUND: Work disability such as sickness absence is common in people with depression. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until January 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of work-directed and clinical interventions for depressed people that included sickness absence as an outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to pool study results in the studies we judged to be sufficiently similar. We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies with 26 study arms, involving 5996 participants with either a major depressive disorder or a high level of depressive symptoms. We judged 14 studies to have a high risk of bias and nine to have a low risk of bias. Work-directed interventions We identified five work-directed interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that a work-directed intervention added to a clinical intervention reduced sickness absence (SMD -0.40; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.14; 3 studies) compared to a clinical intervention alone.There was moderate quality evidence based on a single study that enhancing the clinical care in addition to regular work-directed care was not more effective than work-directed care alone (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.21).There was very low quality evidence based on one study that regular care by occupational physicians that was enhanced with an exposure-based return to work program did not reduce sickness absence compared to regular care by occupational physicians (non-significant finding: SMD 0.45; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.91). Clinical interventions, antidepressant medication Three studies compared the effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medication on reducing sickness absence and yielded highly inconsistent results. Clinical interventions, psychological We found moderate quality evidence based on three studies that telephone or online cognitive behavioural therapy was more effective in reducing sick leave than usual primary or occupational care (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.01). Clinical interventions, psychological combined with antidepressant medication We found low quality evidence based on two studies that enhanced primary care did not substantially decrease sickness absence in the medium term (4 to 12 months) (SMD -0.02; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12). A third study found no substantial effect on sickness absence in favour of this intervention in the long term (24 months).We found high quality evidence, based on one study, that a structured telephone outreach and care management program was more effective in reducing sickness absence than usual care (SMD - 0.21; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.05). Clinical interventions, exercise We found low quality evidence based on one study that supervised strength exercise reduced sickness absence compared to relaxation (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.68 to -0.54). We found moderate quality evidence based on two studies that aerobic exercise was no more effective in reducing sickness absence than relaxation or stretching (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate quality evidence that adding a work-directed intervention to a clinical intervention reduced the number of days on sick leave compared to a clinical intervention alone. We also found moderate quality evidence that enhancing primary or occupational care with cognitive behavioural therapy reduced sick leave compared to the usual care. A structured telephone outreach and care management program that included medication reduced sickness absence compared to usual care. However, enhancing primary care with a quality improvement program did not have a considerable effect on sickness absence. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on sickness absence of one antidepressant medication compared to another. More studies are needed on work-directed interventions. Clinical intervention studies should also include work outcomes to increase our knowledge on reducing sickness absence in depressed workers.

Indirect and total costs of early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate, and sulfasalazine with sulfasalazine alone.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the effect of indirect costs for patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within the COBRA trial (Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoide Artritis) on the cost-effectiveness of both therapies. Analyses of the efficacy and direct costs of the treatments have already been reported. METHODS: Patients with early RA selected for the 56-week trial were randomly assigned to prednisolone, methotrexate, and sulfasalazine (the COBRA combination) (n = 76, tapered after 28 weeks) or to sulfasalazine (SSZ; n = 79, of which 78 patients were evaluable) alone. The main efficacy outcomes were a pooled index and radiographic damage score in hands and feet, and utilities. Direct and indirect costs were measured (from a societal perspective) by means of cost diaries and interviews completed by patients during the intervention phase and the followup phase, each lasting 28 weeks. Differences in mean costs between groups and cost-utility ratios were evaluated by applying nonparametric bootstrapping techniques. RESULTS: In the first 28 weeks, indirect costs per patient totaled US $2,578 and US $3,638 for COBRA and SSZ therapy, respectively (p = 0.09). The total costs were $5,931 and $7,853, respectively (p < 0.05). These differences were lost in the second 28 weeks. For the total period the mean total costs per patient were $10,262 and $12,788, respectively (p = 0.11). Sensitivity analyses showed robustness of the data. The point estimate of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year based on the rating scale was negative at $-385, suggesting dominance of COBRA (more effect at lower cost). CONCLUSION: COBRA therapy adds additional disease control (improvements in disease activity, physical function, and rate of damage progression) at lower or equal cost compared to SSZ in early RA.

COBRA combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: long-term structural benefits of a brief intervention.

OBJECTIVE: The Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoide Artritis (COBRA) trial demonstrated that step-down combination therapy with prednisolone, methotrexate, and sulfasalazine (SSZ) was superior to SSZ monotherapy for suppressing disease activity and radiologic progression of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The current study was conducted to investigate whether the benefits of COBRA therapy were sustained over time, and to determine which baseline factors could predict outcome. METHODS: All patients had participated in the 56-week COBRA trial. During followup, they were seen by their own rheumatologists and were also assessed regularly by study nurses; no treatment protocol was specified. Disease activity, radiologic damage, and functional ability were the primary outcome domains. Two independent assessors scored radiographs in sequence according to the Sharp/van der Heijde method. Outcomes were analyzed by generalized estimating equations on the basis of intent-to-treat, starting with data obtained at the last visit of the COBRA trial (56 weeks after baseline). RESULTS: At the beginning of followup, patients in the COBRA group had a significantly lower mean time-averaged 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) and a significantly lower median radiologic damage (Sharp) score compared with those in the SSZ monotherapy group. The functional ability score (Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]) was similar in both groups. During the 4-5 year followup period, the time-averaged DAS28 decreased 0.17 points per year in the SSZ group and 0.07 in the COBRA group. The Sharp progression rate was 8.6 points per year in the SSZ group and 5.6 in the COBRA group. After adjustment for differences in treatment and disease activity during followup, the between-group difference in the rate of radiologic progression was 3.7 points per year. The HAQ score did not change significantly over time. Independent baseline predictors of radiologic progression over time (apart from treatment allocation) were rheumatoid factor positivity, Sharp score, and DAS28. CONCLUSION: An initial 6-month cycle of intensive combination treatment that includes high-dose corticosteroids results in sustained suppression of the rate of radiologic progression in patients with early RA, independent of subsequent antirheumatic therapy.