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

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

No pain, no gain: depressed clients' experiences of cognitive behavioural therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression, but many clients do not complete therapy. What clients find difficult about CBT is poorly understood. This study explored clients' views and experiences of face-to-face CBT. DESIGN: A mixed methods design was used to collect data as part of the CoBalT trial. METHOD: Participants randomized to CBT indicated their reasons for never starting or stopping therapy on the follow-up questionnaires. In-depth qualitative interviews took place with a purposive sample (n = 26) of those randomized to CBT. Framework analysis was used to analyse across the data. RESULTS: Seventy-four participants withdrew from therapy or were discharged for non-adherence. A total of 54 (73%) gave reasons for not starting or stopping CBT; mostly the time/location was inconvenient or they had other commitments. Interviews identified that clients could struggle in, and between, CBT sessions. This was true for those who did and did not complete therapy. CBT homework was the biggest challenge and was often associated with negative school homework experiences. Although clients may have disliked aspects of CBT, those who attended more than one session felt that they had gained insight into managing their depression. CONCLUSION: Highlighting the possible barriers to adherence in CBT can help clinicians to better prepare clients in making an informed choice about therapy. Exploring these issues during therapy may also help with engagement. Despite the challenges, clients can still benefit from CBT by learning strategies that enable them to effectively deal with their depression.

Physical activity as a treatment for depression: the TREAD randomised trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Depression is one of the most common reasons for consulting a General Practitioner (GP) within the UK. Whilst antidepressants have been shown to be clinically effective, many patients and healthcare professionals would like to access other forms of treatment as an alternative or adjunct to drug therapy for depression. A recent systematic review presented some evidence that physical activity could offer one such option, although further investigation is needed to test its effectiveness within the context of the National Health Service.The aim of this paper is to describe the protocol for a randomised, controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate an intervention developed to increase physical activity as a treatment for depression within primary care. METHODS/DESIGN: The TREAD study is a pragmatic, multi-centre, two-arm RCT which targets patients presenting with a new episode of depression. Patients were approached if they were aged 18-69, had recently consulted their GP for depression and, where appropriate, had been taking antidepressants for less than one month. Only those patients with a confirmed diagnosis of a depressive episode as assessed by the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R), a Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score of at least 14 and informed written consent were included in the study. Eligible patients were individually randomised to one of two treatment groups; usual GP care or usual GP care plus facilitated physical activity. The primary outcome of the trial is clinical symptoms of depression assessed using the BDI four months after randomisation. A number of secondary outcomes are also measured at the 4-, 8- and 12-month follow-up points including quality of life, attitude to and involvement in physical activity and antidepressant use/adherence. Outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis and will use linear and logistic regression models to compare treatments. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial will provide information about the effectiveness of physical activity as a treatment for depression. Given the current prevalence of depression and its associated economic burden, it is hoped that TREAD will provide a timely contribution to the evidence on treatment options for patients, clinicians and policy-makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 16900744.