Feasibility and acceptability of NIDUS-professional, a training and support intervention for homecare workers caring for clients living with dementia: a cluster-randomised feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: In the first randomised controlled trial of a dementia training and support intervention in UK homecare agencies, we aimed to assess: acceptability of our co-designed, manualised training, delivered by non-clinical facilitators; outcome completion feasibility; and costs for a future trial. METHODS: This cluster-randomised (2:1) single-blind, feasibility trial involved English homecare agencies. Intervention arm agency staff were offered group videocall sessions: 6 over 3 months, then monthly for 3 months (NIDUS-professional). Family carers (henceforth carers) and clients with dementia (dyads) were offered six to eight complementary, individual intervention sessions (NIDUS-Family). We collected potential trial measures as secondary outcomes remotely at baseline and 6 months: HCW (homecare worker) Work-related Strain Inventory (WRSI), Sense of Competence (SoC); proxy-rated Quality of Life (QOL), Disability Assessment for Dementia scale (DAD), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and Homecare Satisfaction (HCS). RESULTS: From December 2021 to September 2022, we met agency (4 intervention, 2 control) and HCWs (n = 62) recruitment targets and recruited 16 carers and 16/60 planned clients. We met a priori progression criteria for adherence (≥4/6 sessions: 29/44 [65.9%,95% confidence interval (CI): 50.1,79.5]), HCW or carer proxy-outcome completion (15/16 (93.8% [69.8,99.8]) and proceeding with adaptation for HCWs outcome completion (46/63 (73.0% [CI: 60.3,83.4]). Delivery of NIDUS-Professional costs was £6,423 (£137 per eligible client). WRSI scores decreased and SoC increased at follow-up, with no significant between-group differences. For intervention arm proxy-rated outcomes, carer-rated QOL increased, HCW-rated was unchanged; carer and HCW-rated NPI decreased; DAD decreased (greater disability) and HCS was unchanged. CONCLUSION: A pragmatic trial is warranted; we will consider using aggregated, agency-level client outcomes, including neuropsychiatric symptoms.

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline alters learning from aversive reinforcements in patients with depression: evidence from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are first-line pharmacological treatments for depression and anxiety. However, little is known about how pharmacological action is related to cognitive and affective processes. Here, we examine whether specific reinforcement learning processes mediate the treatment effects of SSRIs. METHODS: The PANDA trial was a multicentre, double-blind, randomized clinical trial in UK primary care comparing the SSRI sertraline with placebo for depression and anxiety. Participants (N = 655) performed an affective Go/NoGo task three times during the trial and computational models were used to infer reinforcement learning processes. RESULTS: There was poor task performance: only 54% of the task runs were informative, with more informative task runs in the placebo than in the active group. There was no evidence for the preregistered hypothesis that Pavlovian inhibition was affected by sertraline. Exploratory analyses revealed that in the sertraline group, early increases in Pavlovian inhibition were associated with improvements in depression after 12 weeks. Furthermore, sertraline increased how fast participants learned from losses and faster learning from losses was associated with more severe generalized anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings indicate a relationship between aversive reinforcement learning mechanisms and aspects of depression, anxiety, and SSRI treatment, but these relationships did not align with the initial hypotheses. Poor task performance limits the interpretability and likely generalizability of the findings, and highlights the critical importance of developing acceptable and reliable tasks for use in clinical studies. FUNDING: This article presents research supported by NIHR Program Grants for Applied Research (RP-PG-0610-10048), the NIHR BRC, and UCL, with additional support from IMPRS COMP2PSYCH (JM, QH) and a Wellcome Trust grant (QH).

Clinical factors associated with relapse in depression in a sample of UK primary care patients who have been on long-term antidepressant treatment.

BACKGROUND: This paper investigates whether age of onset of depression, duration of the last episode, number of episodes, and residual symptoms of depression and anxiety are associated with depression relapse in primary care patients who have been on long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment and no longer meet ICD10 criteria for depression. METHODS: An observational cohort using data from ANTLER (N = 478), a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was time to relapse using the retrospective CIS-R. Participants were followed for 12 months. RESULTS: Primary outcome was available for 468 participants. Time to relapse in those with more than five previous episodes of depression was shorter, hazard ratio (HR) 1.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-2.75) compared to people with two episodes; HR 1.57 (95% CI 1.01-2.43) after adjustment. The residual symptoms of depression at baseline were also associated with increased relapse: HR 1.05 (95% CI 1.01-1.09) and HR 1.06 (95% CI 1.01-1.12) in the adjusted model. There was evidence of reduced rate of relapse in older age of onset group: HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.78-0.95); HR attenuated after adjustment HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.81-1.02). There was no evidence of an association between duration of the current episode and residual anxiety symptoms with relapse. CONCLUSIONS: The number of previous episodes and residual symptoms of depression were associated with increased likelihood of relapse. These factors could inform joint decision making when patients are considering tapering off maintenance antidepressant treatment or considering other treatments to prevent relapse.

Reliability of the retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule Revised (rCIS-R) to assess relapse in depression in primary care patients.

OBJECTIVES: We are not aware of a simple and short structured measure that retrospectively assesses time to relapse for depression. We developed the retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule Revised (rCIS-R) to assess depression relapse in the previous 12 weeks, for use in a clinical trial of maintenance antidepressant treatment. We assessed test-retest reliability and construct validity in relation to a Global Rating Question (GRQ) about worsening mood, participants stopping their study medication and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores. METHODS: In our study 444 participants provided data for rCIS-R, GRQ and PHQ-9 and 396 participants completed rCIS-R on two occasions about 30 minutes apart. The reliability study was nested within a randomised controlled trial (ANTLER). RESULTS: We found substantial test-retest agreement for the rCIS-R definition of relapse (kappa 0.84 (95%CI 0.71 to 0.97)), for individual sections and timing of relapse (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0.94 (95%CI 0.92 to 0.95)). Comparison of relapse with GRQ, stopping study medication and PHQ-9 supported the construct validity of the rCIS-R. CONCLUSIONS: The rCIS-R provides a reliable way of assessing relapse of depression over the previous 12 weeks. Its brevity, self-report format, simplicity of scoring and absence of training requirement makes it attractive to use in randomised controlled trials.

Neuropsychological markers of antidepressant action: a secondary analysis of the ANTLER randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants have been proposed to act via their influence on emotional processing. We investigated the effect of discontinuing maintenance antidepressant treatment on positive and negative self-referential recall and the association between self-referential recall and risk of relapse. METHODS: The ANTLER trial was a large (N = 478) pragmatic double-blind trial investigating the clinical effectiveness of long-term antidepressant treatment for preventing relapse in primary care patients. Participants were randomised to continue their maintenance antidepressants or discontinue via a taper to placebo. We analysed memory for positive and negative personality descriptors, assessed at baseline, 12- and 52-week follow-up. RESULTS: The recall task was completed by 437 participants. There was no evidence of an effect of discontinuation on self-referential recall at 12 [positive recall ratio 1.00, 95% CI (0.90-1.11), p = 0.93; negative recall ratio 1.00 (0.87-1.14), p = 0.87] or 52 weeks [positive recall ratio 1.03 (0.91-1.17), p = 0.62; negative recall ratio 1.00 (0.86-1.15), p = 0.96; ratios larger than one indicate higher recall in the discontinuation group], and no evidence of an association between recall at baseline or 12 weeks and later relapse [baseline, positive hazard ratio (HR) 1.02 (0.93-1.12), p = 0.74; negative HR 1.01 (0.90-1.13), p = 0.87; 12 weeks, positive HR 0.99 (0.89-1.09), p = 0.81; negative HR 0.98 (0.84-1.14), p = 0.78; ratios larger than one indicate a higher frequency of relapse in those with higher recall]. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that discontinuing long-term antidepressants altered self-referential recall or that self-referential recall was associated with risk of relapse. These findings suggest that self-referential recall is not a neuropsychological marker of antidepressant action.

Feasibility and acceptability of NIDUS-Professional, a training and support intervention for homecare workers caring for clients living with dementia: a cluster-randomised feasibility trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Most people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes, and are supported to do so by family carers and homecare workers. There are concerns that homecare is often unable to meet the needs of this client group, with limited evidence regarding effective interventions to improve it for people living with dementia. We have developed a training and support programme for homecare workers (NIDUS-Professional) to be delivered alongside support sessions for people living with dementia and their family carers (NIDUS-Family). We aim to assess (1) its acceptability among homecare workers and employing agencies, and (2) the feasibility of homecare workers, people living with dementia and their family carers completing the outcomes of intervention in a future randomised controlled trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cluster-randomised (2:1) single-blind, multisite feasibility trial. We aim to recruit 60-90 homecare workers, 30-60 clients living with dementia and their family carers through 6-9 English homecare agencies. In the intervention arm, homecare staff will be offered six group sessions on video call over three months, followed by monthly group sessions over the subsequent three-month period. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline and at six months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received ethical approval on 7 January 2020 from the Camden & King's Cross Research Ethics Committee. Study reference: 19/LO/1667. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentation and blog to research and clinical audiences; we will attend forums to present findings to participating homecare agencies and their clients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15757555.

Almost half of people on long term antidepressants can stop without relapsing.

The studyDuffy L, Clarke CS, Lewis G, et al. Antidepressant medication to prevent depression relapse in primary care: the ANTLER RCT. Health Technol Assess 2021;25:69.To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/almost-half-people-long-term-antidepressants-stop-without-relapse/.

Time to reflect is a rare and valued opportunity; a pilot of the NIDUS-professional dementia training intervention for homecare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Most people living with dementia want to continue living in their own home for as long as possible and many rely on support from homecare services to do so. There are concerns that homecare often fails to meet the needs of clients with dementia, but there is limited evidence regarding effective interventions to improve its delivery for this client group. We aimed to assess whether a co-designed, 6-session dementia training intervention for homecare workers (NIDUS-professional) was acceptable and feasible. Facilitated training sessions were delivered over 3 months, followed by 3, monthly implementation meetings to embed changes in practice. Two trained and supervised facilitators without clinical qualifications delivered the intervention via group video-calls during Oct 2020-March 2021 to a group of seven homecare workers from one agency in England. Participants provided qualitative feedback 3- and 6-months post intervention. Qualitative interview data and facilitator notes were integrated in a thematic analysis. Adherence to the intervention and fidelity of delivery were high, indicating that it was acceptable and feasible to deliver in practice. Thirty of a possible 42 (71.4%) group sessions were attended. In our thematic analysis we report one over-arching theme: 'Having time and space to reflect is a rare opportunity'. Within this we identified four subthemes (Having time to reflect is a rare opportunity; Reflecting with peers enhances learning; Reflection and perspective taking can improve care; Recognising skills and building confidence) through which we explored how participants valued the intervention to discuss their work and learn new skills. Attendance was lower for the implementation sessions, perhaps reflecting participants' lack of clarity about their purpose. We used our findings to consider how we can maintain positive impacts of the manualised sessions, so that these are translated into tangible, scalable benefits for people living with dementia and the homecare workforce. A randomised feasibility trial is underway.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Discontinuing Antidepressants in England Primary Care Patients Compared with Long-Term Maintenance: The ANTLER Study.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common mental health condition with considerable negative impact on health and well-being. Although antidepressants are recommended as first-line treatment, there is limited evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of long-term maintenance antidepressants for preventing relapse. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to calculate the mean incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 12 months of discontinuing long-term antidepressant medication in well patients compared with maintenance, using patient-level trial data. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis of 478 participants from 150 UK general practices recruited to a randomised, double-blind trial (ANTLER). QALYs were calculated from EQ-5D-5L and 12-Item Short Form survey (SF-12) results, with primary analysis using the EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Resource use was collected from primary care patient electronic medical records and self-completed questionnaires capturing mental-health-related resource use. Costs were calculated by applying standard UK unit costs to resource use. Adjustments were made for baseline variables. RESULTS: Participants randomised to discontinuation had significantly worse utility scores at 3 months (- 0.032; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.053 to - 0.011) but no significant difference in QALYs (- 0.011; 95% CI - 0.026 to 0.003) or costs (£3.11; 95% CI - 41.28 to 47.50) at 12 months. The probability that discontinuation was cost effective compared with maintenance was 12.9% at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation of antidepressants was unlikely to be cost effective compared with maintenance for currently well patients on long-term antidepressants. However, this analysis provides no information on the wider impact of antidepressants. Our findings provide information on the potential impact of discontinuing long-term maintenance antidepressants and facilitate improving guidance for shared patient-clinician decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2015-004210-26; ISRCTN number ISRCTN15969819.

The effect of sertraline on emotional processing: secondary analyses of the PANDA randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: According to the cognitive neuropsychological model, antidepressants reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety by increasing positive relative to negative information processing. Most studies of whether antidepressants alter emotional processing use small samples of healthy individuals, which lead to low statistical power and selection bias and are difficult to generalise to clinical practice. We tested whether the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) sertraline altered recall of positive and negative information in a large randomised controlled trial (RCT) of patients with depressive symptoms recruited from primary care. METHODS: The PANDA trial was a pragmatic multicentre double-blind RCT comparing sertraline with placebo. Memory for personality descriptors was tested at baseline and 2 and 6 weeks after randomisation using a computerised emotional categorisation task followed by a free recall. We measured the number of positive and negative words correctly recalled (hits). Poisson mixed models were used to analyse longitudinal associations between treatment allocation and hits. RESULTS: A total of 576 participants (88% of those randomised) completed the recall task at 2 and 6 weeks. We found no evidence that positive or negative hits differed according to treatment allocation at 2 or 6 weeks (adjusted positive hits ratio = 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.05, p = 0.52; adjusted negative hits ratio = 0.99, 95% CI 0.90-1.08, p = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: In the largest individual placebo-controlled trial of an antidepressant not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, we found no evidence that sertraline altered positive or negative recall early in treatment. These findings challenge some assumptions of the cognitive neuropsychological model of antidepressant action.

How much change is enough? Evidence from a longitudinal study on depression in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) are widely used in the evaluation of interventions for depression and anxiety. The smallest reduction in depressive symptoms that matter to patients is known as the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID). Little empirical study of the MCID for these scales exists. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 400 patients in UK primary care were interviewed on four occasions, 2 weeks apart. At each time point, participants completed all three questionnaires and a 'global rating of change' scale (GRS). MCID estimation relied on estimated changes in symptoms according to reported improvement on the GRS scale, stratified by baseline severity on the Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R). RESULTS: For moderate baseline severity, those who reported improvement on the GRS had a reduction of 21% (95% confidence interval (CI) -26.7 to -14.9) on the PHQ-9; 23% (95% CI -27.8 to -18.0) on the BDI-II and 26.8% (95% CI -33.5 to -20.1) on the GAD-7. The corresponding threshold scores below which participants were more likely to report improvement were -1.7, -3.5 and -1.5 points on the PHQ-9, BDI-II and GAD-7, respectively. Patients with milder symptoms require much larger reductions as percentage of their baseline to endorse improvement. CONCLUSIONS: An MCID representing 20% reduction of scores in these scales, is a useful guide for patients with moderately severe symptoms. If treatment had the same effect on patients irrespective of baseline severity, those with low symptoms are unlikely to notice a benefit. FUNDING: Funding. National Institute for Health Research.

Antidepressant medication to prevent depression relapse in primary care: the ANTLER RCT.

BACKGROUND: There has been a steady increase in the number of primary care patients receiving long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment, despite limited evidence of a benefit of this treatment beyond 8 months. OBJECTIVE: The ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession (ANTLER) trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressant medication in preventing relapse in UK primary care. DESIGN: This was a Phase IV, double-blind, pragmatic, multisite, individually randomised parallel-group controlled trial, with follow-up at 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. Participants were randomised using minimisation on centre, type of antidepressant and baseline depressive symptom score above or below the median using Clinical Interview Schedule - Revised (two categories). Statisticians were blind to allocation for the outcome analyses. SETTING: General practices in London, Bristol, Southampton and York. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 18-74 years who had experienced at least two episodes of depression and had been taking antidepressants for ≥ 9 months but felt well enough to consider stopping their medication. Those who met an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of depression or with other psychiatric conditions were excluded. INTERVENTION: At baseline, participants were taking citalopram 20 mg, sertraline 100 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg or mirtazapine 30 mg. They were randomised to either remain on their current medication or discontinue medication after a tapering period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the time, in weeks, to the beginning of the first depressive episode after randomisation. This was measured by a retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule - Revised that assessed the onset of a depressive episode in the previous 12 weeks, and was conducted at 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. The depression-related resource use was collected over 12 months from medical records and patient-completed questionnaires. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. RESULTS: Between 9 March 2017 and 1 March 2019, we randomised 238 participants to antidepressant continuation (the maintenance group) and 240 participants to antidepressant discontinuation (the discontinuation group). The time to relapse of depression was shorter in the discontinuation group, with a hazard ratio of 2.06 (95% confidence interval 1.56 to 2.70; p < 0.0001). By 52 weeks, relapse was experienced by 39% of those who continued antidepressants and 56% of those who discontinued antidepressants. The secondary analysis revealed that people who discontinued experienced more withdrawal symptoms than those who remained on medication, with the largest difference at 12 weeks. In the discontinuation group, 37% (95% confidence interval 28% to 45%) of participants remained on their randomised medication until the end of the trial. In total, 39% (95% confidence interval 32% to 45%) of participants in the discontinuation group returned to their original antidepressant compared with 20% (95% confidence interval 15% to 25%) of participants in maintenance group. The health economic evaluation demonstrated that participants randomised to discontinuation had worse utility scores at 3 months (-0.037, 95% confidence interval -0.059 to -0.015) and fewer quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months (-0.019, 95% confidence interval -0.035 to -0.003) than those randomised to continuation. The discontinuation pathway, besides giving worse outcomes, also cost more [extra £2.71 per patient over 12 months (95% confidence interval -£36.10 to £37.07)] than the continuation pathway, although the cost difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who discontinue long-term maintenance antidepressants in primary care are at increased risk of relapse and withdrawal symptoms. However, a substantial proportion of patients can discontinue antidepressants without relapse. Our findings will give patients and clinicians an estimate of the likely benefits and harms of stopping long-term maintenance antidepressants and improve shared decision-making. The participants may not have been representative of all people on long-term maintenance treatment and we could study only a restricted range of antidepressants and doses. Identifying patients who will not relapse if they discontinued antidepressants would be clinically important. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15969819 and EudraCT 2015-004210-26. 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. 25, No. 69. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Antidepressants are used to treat depression when someone is unwell, but are also used as maintenance treatment to prevent the reoccurrence of depression. There has been a large increase in the use of long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment, but the evidence for the benefits of maintenance beyond 8 months is very poor. The ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession (ANTLER) trial was a randomised controlled trial that examined the effectiveness of long-term maintenance treatment with antidepressants. The participants were well enough to consider stopping antidepressant medication, were recruited from primary care and had taken antidepressants for ≥ 9 months. In total, 238 participants were randomised to continue taking antidepressants and 240 were randomised to receive a visually identical tablet that contained no active ingredients after a period when the antidepressants were gradually reduced. Neither the participants nor those interviewing them knew which group they had been placed in, and they were followed up for 1 year. Participants who discontinued antidepressants were more likely to experience relapse than those who continued antidepressants. By 52 weeks, 39% of those who continued antidepressants had experienced a relapse, compared with 56% in the group that discontinued antidepressants. In other words, over a 52-week period, one in every six patients who stopped antidepressants would experience a relapse that may not have occurred if they had remained on their antidepressants. Patients in the discontinuation group reported more symptoms of anxiety and depression and experienced more withdrawal symptoms than those in the maintenance group, mostly in the first 3­4 months after stopping the antidepressants. Participants in the discontinuation group also reported lower quality of life than those in the maintenance group but both groups used similar amounts of health-care and social care resources over the 12-month period. About one-third of participants who were allocated to the discontinuation group in the ANTLER trial decided to restart their antidepressants. However, another one-third of participants in that group remained on trial medication for 12 months and managed without antidepressants. Long-term maintenance treatment with antidepressants is effective in reducing the rate of relapses. For those who are considering stopping their antidepressant, our findings will provide estimates of the likely benefits and harms, to improve shared decision-making and support the regular review of long-term antidepressant prescription.

Maintenance or Discontinuation of Antidepressants in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with depression who are treated in primary care practices may receive antidepressants for prolonged periods. Data are limited on the effects of maintaining or discontinuing antidepressant therapy in this setting. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving adults who were being treated in 150 general practices in the United Kingdom. All the patients had a history of at least two depressive episodes or had been taking antidepressants for 2 years or longer and felt well enough to consider stopping antidepressants. Patients who had received citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, or mirtazapine were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to maintain their current antidepressant therapy (maintenance group) or to taper and discontinue such therapy with the use of matching placebo (discontinuation group). The primary outcome was the first relapse of depression during the 52-week trial period, as evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, physical and withdrawal symptoms, quality of life, time to stopping an antidepressant or placebo, and global mood ratings. RESULTS: A total of 1466 patients underwent screening. Of these patients, 478 were enrolled in the trial (238 in the maintenance group and 240 in the discontinuation group). The average age of the patients was 54 years; 73% were women. Adherence to the trial assignment was 70% in the maintenance group and 52% in the discontinuation group. By 52 weeks, relapse occurred in 92 of 238 patients (39%) in the maintenance group and in 135 of 240 (56%) in the discontinuation group (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 2.70; P<0.001). Secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as the primary outcome. Patients in the discontinuation group had more symptoms of depression, anxiety, and withdrawal than those in the maintenance group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in primary care practices who felt well enough to discontinue antidepressant therapy, those who were assigned to stop their medication had a higher risk of relapse of depression by 52 weeks than those who were assigned to maintain their current therapy. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; ANTLER ISRCTN number, ISRCTN15969819.).

Cost-Effectiveness of Sertraline in Primary Care According to Initial Severity and Duration of Depressive Symptoms: Findings from the PANDA RCT.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are commonly prescribed for depression, but it is unclear whether treatment efficacy depends on severity and duration of symptoms and how prescribing might be targeted cost-effectively. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the cost-effectiveness of the antidepressant sertraline compared with placebo in subgroups defined by severity and duration of depressive symptoms. METHODS: We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the NHS and Personal and Social Services (PSS) in the UK alongside the PANDA (What are the indications for Prescribing ANtiDepressants that will leAd to a clinical benefit?) randomised controlled trial (RCT), which compared sertraline with placebo over a 12-week period. Quality of life data were collected at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 weeks post-randomisation using EQ-5D-5L, from which we calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs (in 2017/18£) were collected using patient records and from resource use questionnaires administered at each follow-up interval. Differences in mean costs and mean QALYs and net monetary benefits were estimated. Our primary analysis used net monetary benefit regressions to identify any interaction between the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and subgroups defined by baseline symptom severity (0-11; 12-19; 20+ on the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised) and, separately, duration of symptoms (greater or less than 2 years duration). A secondary analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of sertraline versus placebo, irrespective of duration or severity. RESULTS: There was no evidence of an association between the baseline severity of depressive symptoms and the cost-effectiveness of sertraline. Compared to patients with low symptom severity, the expected net benefits in patients with moderate symptoms were £24 (95% CI - £280 to £328; p value 0.876) and the expected net benefits in patients with high symptom severity were £37 (95% CI - £221 to £296; p value 0.776). Patients who had a longer history of depressive symptoms at baseline had lower expected net benefits from sertraline than those with a shorter history; however, the difference was uncertain (- £27 [95% CI - £258 to £204]; p value 0.817). In the secondary analysis, patients treated with sertraline had higher expected net benefits (£122 [95% CI £18 to £226]; p value 0.101) than those in the placebo group. Sertraline had a high probability (> 95%) of being cost-effective if the health system was willing to pay at least £20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence of a prespecified threshold based on severity or symptom duration that GPs could use to target prescribing to a subgroup of patients where sertraline is most cost-effective. Sertraline is probably a cost-effective treatment for depressive symptoms in UK primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN84544741.

The clinical effectiveness of sertraline in primary care and the role of depression severity and duration (PANDA): a pragmatic, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is usually managed in primary care, but most antidepressant trials are of patients from secondary care mental health services, with eligibility criteria based on diagnosis and severity of depressive symptoms. Antidepressants are now used in a much wider group of people than in previous regulatory trials. We investigated the clinical effectiveness of sertraline in patients in primary care with depressive symptoms ranging from mild to severe and tested the role of severity and duration in treatment response. METHODS: The PANDA study was a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial of patients from 179 primary care surgeries in four UK cities (Bristol, Liverpool, London, and York). We included patients aged 18 to 74 years who had depressive symptoms of any severity or duration in the past 2 years, where there was clinical uncertainty about the benefit of an antidepressant. This strategy was designed to improve the generalisability of our sample to current use of antidepressants within primary care. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a remote computer-generated code to sertraline or placebo, and were stratified by severity, duration, and site with random block length. Patients received one capsule (sertraline 50 mg or placebo orally) daily for one week then two capsules daily for up to 11 weeks, consistent with evidence on optimal dosages for efficacy and acceptability. The primary outcome was depressive symptoms 6 weeks after randomisation, measured by Patient Health Questionnaire, 9-item version (PHQ-9) scores. Secondary outcomes at 2, 6 and 12 weeks were depressive symptoms and remission (PHQ-9 and Beck Depression Inventory-II), generalised anxiety symptoms (Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment 7-item version), mental and physical health-related quality of life (12-item Short-Form Health Survey), and self-reported improvement. All analyses compared groups as randomised (intention-to-treat). The study is registered with EudraCT, 2013-003440-22 (protocol number 13/0413; version 6.1) and ISRCTN, ISRCTN84544741, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2015, and Aug 31, 2017, we recruited and randomly assigned 655 patients-326 (50%) to sertraline and 329 (50%) to placebo. Two patients in the sertraline group did not complete a substantial proportion of the baseline assessment and were excluded, leaving 653 patients in total. Due to attrition, primary outcome analyses were of 550 patients (266 in the sertraline group and 284 in the placebo group; 85% follow-up that did not differ by treatment allocation). We found no evidence that sertraline led to a clinically meaningful reduction in depressive symptoms at 6 weeks. The mean 6-week PHQ-9 score was 7·98 (SD 5·63) in the sertraline group and 8·76 (5·86) in the placebo group (adjusted proportional difference 0·95, 95% CI 0·85-1·07; p=0·41). However, for secondary outcomes, we found evidence that sertraline led to reduced anxiety symptoms, better mental (but not physical) health-related quality of life, and self-reported improvements in mental health. We observed weak evidence that depressive symptoms were reduced by sertraline at 12 weeks. We recorded seven adverse events-four for sertraline and three for placebo, and adverse events did not differ by treatment allocation. Three adverse events were classified as serious-two in the sertraline group and one in the placebo group. One serious adverse event in the sertraline group was classified as possibly related to study medication. INTERPRETATION: Sertraline is unlikely to reduce depressive symptoms within 6 weeks in primary care but we observed improvements in anxiety, quality of life, and self-rated mental health, which are likely to be clinically important. Our findings support the prescription of SSRI antidepressants in a wider group of participants than previously thought, including those with mild to moderate symptoms who do not meet diagnostic criteria for depression or generalised anxiety disorder. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Variation in recognition of happy and sad facial expressions and self-reported depressive symptom severity: A prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive theories suggest people with depression interpret self-referential social information negatively. However, it is unclear whether these biases precede or follow depression. We investigated whether facial expression recognition was associated with depressive symptoms cross-sectionally and longitudinally. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of people who had visited UK primary care in the past year reporting depressive symptoms (n = 509). Depressive symptoms were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) at four time-points, 2 weeks apart. A computerised task assessed happy and sad facial expression recognition at three time-points (n = 505 at time 1). The unbiased hit rate measured ability to recognise emotions accounting for any general tendency to identify the emotion when it was not present. RESULTS: The sample included the full range of depressive symptom severity, with 45% meeting diagnostic criteria for depression. There was no evidence that happy or sad unbiased hit rates were associated with concurrent or subsequent depressive symptoms. There was weak evidence that, for every additional face incorrectly classified as happy, concurrent PHQ-9 scores reduced by 0.05 of a point (95% CI = -0.10 to 0.002, p = 0.06 after adjustment for confounders). This association was strongest for more ambiguous facial expressions (interaction term p<0.001). LIMITATIONS: This was an observational study with relatively short follow-up (6 weeks) and small changes in depressive symptoms and emotion recognition. Only 7% of invited patients consented to participate. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced misclassifications of ambiguous faces as happy could be a state marker of depression, but was not associated with subsequent depressive symptoms. Future research should focus on the interpretation of ambiguous social information.

A randomised controlled trial assessing the use of citalopram, sertraline, fluoxetine and mirtazapine in preventing relapse in primary care patients who are taking long-term maintenance antidepressants (ANTLER: ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are used both for treating acute episodes and for prophylaxis to prevent future episodes of depression, also called maintenance treatment. This article describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ANTLER: ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession) to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in UK primary care of continuing on long-term maintenance antidepressants compared with a placebo in preventing relapse of depression in those who have taken antidepressants for more than 9 months and who are currently well enough to consider stopping maintenance treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: The ANTLER trial is an individually randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which participants are randomised to remain on active medication or to take an identical placebo after a tapering period of 2 months. Eligible participants are those who: are between the ages of 18 and 74 years; have had at least two episodes of depression; and have been taking antidepressants for 9 months or more and are currently taking citalopram 20 mg, sertraline 100 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg or mirtazapine 30 mg but are well enough to consider stopping their medication. The participants will be followed up at 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. The primary outcome will be the time in weeks to the beginning of the first episode of depression after randomisation. This will be measured using a retrospective version of the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised administered at 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include depressive and anxiety symptoms, adverse effects, withdrawal symptoms, emotional processing tasks, quality of life and the resources and costs used. We will also perform a cost-effectiveness analysis based on results of the trial. DISCUSSION: The ANTLER trial findings will inform primary care prescribing practice by providing a valid and generalisable estimate of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of long-term maintenance treatment with antidepressants in UK primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN15969819. Registered on 21 September 2015.

A randomised controlled trial assessing the severity and duration of depressive symptoms associated with a clinically significant response to sertraline versus placebo, in people presenting to primary care with depression (PANDA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms are usually managed within primary care and antidepressant medication constitutes the first-line treatment. It remains unclear at present which people are more likely to benefit from antidepressant medication. This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PANDA) to investigate the severity and duration of depressive symptoms that are associated with a clinically significant response to sertraline compared to placebo, in people presenting to primary care with depression. METHODS/DESIGN: PANDA is a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial in which participants are individually randomised to sertraline or placebo. Eligible participants are those who are between the ages of 18 to 74; have presented to primary care with depression or low mood during the past 2 years; have not received antidepressant or anti-anxiety medication in the 8 weeks prior to enrolment in the trial and there is clinical equipoise about the benefits of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medication. Participants who consent to participate in the trial are randomised to receive either sertraline or matching placebo, starting at 50 mg daily for 1 week, increasing to 100 mg daily for up to 11 weeks (with the option of increasing to 150 mg if required). Participants, general practitioners (GPs) and the research team will be blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome will be depressive symptoms measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at 6 weeks post randomisation, measured as a continuous outcome. Secondary outcomes include depressive symptoms measured with the PHQ-9 at 2 and 12 weeks as a continuous outcome and at 2, 6 and 12 weeks as a binary outcome; follow-up scores on depressive symptoms measured with the Beck Depression Inventory-II, anxiety symptoms measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and quality of life measured with the Euroqol-5D-5L and Short Form-12; emotional processing task scores measured at baseline, 2 and 6 weeks; and costs associated with healthcare use, time off work and personal costs. DISCUSSION: The PANDA trial uses a simple self-administered measure to establish the severity and duration of depressive symptoms associated with a clinically significant response to sertraline. The evidence from the trial will inform primary care prescribing practice by identifying which patients are more likely to benefit from antidepressants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN84544741 . Registered on 20 March 2014. EudraCT Number: 2013-003440-22; Protocol Number: 13/0413 (version 6.1).

Usefulness of PHQ-9 in primary care to determine meaningful symptoms of low mood: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Self-administered questionnaires, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), are regularly used in clinical practice to guide prescribing or to measure recovery and response to treatment. There are concerns that patients are not all interpreting the questionnaire items in the same way. Cognitive interviewing is a research technique that identifies 'interpretative measurement error' (IME). IME is distinct from traditional components of measurement error, such as not reading the question as worded, or recording answers inaccurately. AIM: To use cognitive interviewing techniques to explore patterns in answer mapping and comprehension of the PHQ-9 questionnaire to ascertain whether the measure captures meaningful symptoms of low mood. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study using cognitive interviewing techniques and card sorting in six GP practices in Bristol. METHOD: The study recruited 18 participants at the point of entry to a longitudinal primary care depression cohort study, PANDA (the indications for Prescribing ANtiDepressants that will leAd to a clinical benefit). Participants were interviewed 2, 4, and 6 weeks after their baseline visit. Cognitive interviews were digitally recorded. Analysis used the digital audio file, rather than verbatim transcripts, as it retained important features needed for analyses. RESULTS: Cognitive interviewing revealed that items on the PHQ-9 are interpreted in a range of ways, that patients often cannot 'fit' their experience into the response options, and therefore often feel the questionnaire is misrepresenting their experience of meaningful symptoms of low mood. CONCLUSION: The PHQ-9 may be missing the presence and/or intensity of certain symptoms that are meaningful to patients. Clinicians should adopt caution when using it.