Fiona Holland

Cognitive behavioural therapy and short-term psychoanalytical psychotherapy versus a brief psychosocial intervention in adolescents with unipolar major depressive disorder (IMPACT): a multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial

Summary Background Psychological treatments for adolescents with unipolar major depressive disorder are associated with diagnostic remission within 28 weeks in 65–70% of patients. We aimed to assess the medium-term effects and costs of psychological therapies on maintenance of reduced depression symptoms 12 months after treatment. Methods We did this multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial (IMPACT) at 15 National Health Service child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) clinics in three regions in England. Adolescent patients (aged 11–17 years) with a diagnosis of DSM IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a web-based randomisation service, to receive cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or short-term psychoanalytical therapy versus a reference brief psychological intervention. Randomisation was stochastically minimised by age, sex, self-reported depression sum score, and region. Patients and clinicians were aware of group allocation, but allocation was concealed from outcome assessors. Patients were followed up and reassessed at weeks 6, 12, 36, 52, and 86 post-randomisation. The primary outcome was self-reported depression symptoms at weeks 36, 52, and 86, as measured with the self-reported Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ). Because our aim was to compare the two psychological therapies with the brief psychosocial intervention, we first established whether CBT was inferior to short-term psychoanalytical psychotherapy for the same outcome. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN83033550. Findings Between June 29, 2010, and Jan 17, 2013, we randomly assigned 470 patients to receive the brief psychosocial intervention (n=158), CBT (n=155), or short-term psychoanalytical therapy (n=157); 465 patients comprised the intention-to-treat population. 392 (84%) patients had available data for primary analysis by the end of follow-up. Treatment fidelity and differentiation were established between the three interventions. The median number of treatment sessions differed significantly between patients in the brief psychosocial intervention group (n=6 [IQR 4–11]), CBT group (n=9 [5–14]), and short-term psychoanalytical therapy group (n=11 [5–23]; p<0·0001), but there was no difference between groups in the average duration of treatment (27·5 [SD 21·5], 24·9 [17·7], 27·9 [16·8] weeks, respectively; Kruskal–Wallis p=0·238). Self-reported depression symptoms did not differ significantly between patients given CBT and those given short-term psychoanalytical therapy at weeks 36 (treatment effect 0·179, 95% CI −3·731 to 4·088; p=0·929), 52 (0·307, −3·161 to 3·774; p=0·862), or 86 (0·578, −2·948 to 4·104; p=0·748). These two psychological treatments had no superiority effect compared with brief psychosocial intervention at weeks 36 (treatment effect −3·234, 95% CI −6·611 to 0·143; p=0·061), 52 (−2·806, −5·790 to 0·177; p=0·065), or 86 (−1·898, −4·922 to 1·126; p=0·219). Physical adverse events (self-reported breathing problems, sleep disturbances, drowsiness or tiredness, nausea, sweating, and being restless or overactive) did not differ between the groups. Total costs of the trial interventions did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation We found no evidence for the superiority of CBT or short-term psychoanalytical therapy compared with a brief psychosocial intervention in maintenance of reduced depression symptoms 12 months after treatment. Short-term psychoanalytical therapy was as effective as CBT and, together with brief psychosocial intervention, offers additional patient choice for psychological therapy, alongside CBT, for adolescents with moderate to severe depression who are attending routine specialist CAMHS clinics. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, and the Department of Health.

Time trends in the incidence of work-related mental ill-health and musculoskeletal disorders in the UK.

Objectives To determine UK trends (from 1996 to 2009) in incidence of work-related mental ill-health and musculoskeletal disorders, for all industry as well as for health and social care employees. Second, to investigate whether there may have been a recent shift from a physical to psychological perspective in how patients present their illness by comparing reporting trends for back pain and ‘other work stress’. Methods Multilevel models were used to investigate changes in incidence of work-related illness, as diagnosed by specialist physicians. The dependent variable comprised case reports to The Health and Occupation Research network. Comparisons were made between medical specialties, industry (health and social care vs all other employees), gender and diagnosis. Results Trends for Occupational Physicians’ (OP) reporting mental ill-health (average annual increase +3.7% (95% CI +2.2% to +5.2%)) differed significantly (p<0.001) from psychiatrists’ reporting over the same time period (−5.9% (95% CI −7.6% to −4.2%)). For OPs’ reporting, the rate of increase was greater for females and for health and social care employees. A fall in incidence of musculoskeletal disorders for OPs of −5.8% (95% CI −7.3% to −4.3%) and rheumatologists’ reporting −6.6% (95% CI −8.3% to −4.8%) was found, with little variation by gender or industry. Within health and social care, an increase in incidence of ‘other work stress’ was accompanied by a similar decrease in ‘spine/back pain’. Conclusions The evidence presented is consistent with a shift in the presentation of ill-health from a physical to psychological perspective, although changes in hazards, prevention measures and physician awareness should also be considered as explanations.

Ketamine augmentation of electroconvulsive therapy to improve neuropsychological and clinical outcomes in depression (Ketamine-ECT): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial

Summary Background The use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is limited by concerns about its cognitive adverse effects. Preliminary evidence suggests that administering the glutamate antagonist ketamine with ECT might alleviate cognitive adverse effects and accelerate symptomatic improvement; we tested this in a randomised trial of low-dose ketamine. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group study in 11 ECT suites serving inpatient and outpatient care settings in seven National Health Service trusts in the North of England, we recruited severely depressed patients, who were diagnosed as having unipolar or bipolar depressive episodes defined as moderate or severe by DSM-IV criteria, aged at least 18 years, and were able and willing to provide written consent to participate in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to ketamine (0·5 mg/kg intravenous bolus) or saline adjunctive to the anaesthetic for the duration of their ECT course. Patients and assessment and ECT treatment teams were masked to treatment allocation, although anaesthetists administering the study medication were not. We analysed the primary outcome, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised delayed verbal recall (HVLT-R-DR) after four ECT treatments, using a Gaussian repeated measures model in all patients receiving the first ECT treatment. In the same population, safety was assessed by adverse effect monitoring. This trial was registered with International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, number ISRCTN14689382. Findings Between early December, 2012, and mid-June, 2015, 628 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 79 were randomly assigned to treatment (40 in the ketamine group vs 39 in the saline group). Ketamine (mean 5·17, SD 2·92), when compared with saline (5·54, 3·42), had no benefit on the primary outcome (HVLT-R-DR; difference in means −0·43 [95% CI −1·73 to 0·87]). 15 (45%) of 33 ketamine-treated patients compared with 10 (27%) of 37 patients receiving saline experienced at least one adverse event which included two (6%) of 33 patients who had ketamine-attributable transient psychological effects. Psychiatric adverse events were the most common in both groups (six [27%] of 22 adverse events in the ketamine group vs seven [54%] of 13 in the saline group). Interpretation No evidence of benefit for ketamine was found although the sample size used was small; however, the results excluded greater than a small to moderate benefit with 95% confidence. The results do not support the use of adjunctive low-dose ketamine in routine ECT treatment. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership.

Clinical effectiveness and acceptability of structured group psychoeducation versus optimised unstructured peer support for patients with remitted bipolar disorder (PARADES): a pragmatic, multicentre, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND Group psychoeducation is a low-cost National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended treatment for bipolar disorder. However, the clinical effectiveness and acceptability of this intervention are unclear compared with unstructured peer support matched for delivery and aim of treatment, and for previous bipolar history. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and acceptability of structured group psychoeducation versus optimised unstructured peer support for patients with remitted bipolar disorder. METHODS We did this pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial at eight community sites in two regions in England. Participants aged 18 years or older with bipolar disorder and no episode in the preceding 4 weeks were recruited via self-referral or secondary care referral. Participants were individually randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated stochastic allocation sequence, to attend 21 2-h weekly sessions of either structured group psychoeducation or optimised unstructured peer support. Randomisation was minimised by number of previous episodes (one to seven, eight to 19, or ≥20) and stratified by clinical site. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to next bipolar episode, with planned moderator analysis of number of previous bipolar episodes and qualitative interview of participant experience. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN62761948. FINDINGS Between Sept 28, 2009, and Jan 9, 2012, we randomly assigned 304 participants to receive psychoeducation (n=153) or peer support (n=151); all (100%) participants had complete primary outcome data. Attendance at psychoeducation groups was higher than at peer-support groups (median 14 sessions [IQR three to 18] vs nine sessions [two to 17]; p=0·026). At 96 weeks, 89 (58%) participants in the psychoeducation group had experienced a next bipolar episode compared with 98 (65%) participants in the peer-support group; time to next bipolar episode did not differ between groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·62-1·11; p=0·217). Planned moderator analysis showed that psychoeducation was most beneficial in participants with few (one to seven) previous bipolar episodes (χ2; HR 0·28, 95% CI 0·12-0·68; p=0·034). Four (1%) participants (one in the psychoeducation group and three in the peer-support group) died during follow-up; these deaths were deemed unrelated to the study interventions or procedures. INTERPRETATION Structured group psychoeducation was no more clinically effective than similarly intensive unstructured peer support, but was more acceptable and improved outcome in participants with fewer previous bipolar episodes. Optimum provision of structured psychological interventions, such as group psychoeducation, early in the course of bipolar disorder might have important benefits on the course of illness, and merits further research. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research.

Study protocol for the randomised controlled trial: Ketamine augmentation of ECT to improve outcomes in depression (Ketamine-ECT study).

BackgroundThere is a robust empirical evidence base supporting the acute efficacy of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for severe and treatment resistant depression. However, a major limitation, probably contributing to its declining use, is that ECT is associated with impairment in cognition, notably in anterograde and retrograde memory and executive function. Preclinical and preliminary human data suggests that ketamine, used either as the sole anaesthetic agent or in addition to other anaesthetics, may reduce or prevent cognitive impairment following ECT. A putative hypothesis is that ketamine, through antagonising glutamate receptors, protects from excess excitatory neurotransmitter stimulation during ECT. The primary aim of the ketamine-ECT study is to investigate whether adjunctive ketamine can attenuate the cognitive impairment caused by ECT. Its secondary aim is to examine if ketamine increases the speed of clinical improvement with ECT.Methods/DesignThe ketamine ECT study is a multi-site randomised, placebo-controlled, double blind trial. It was originally planned to recruit 160 moderately to severely depressed patients who had been clinically prescribed ECT. This recruitment target was subsequently revised to 100 patients due to recruitment difficulties. Patients will be randomly allocated on a 1:1 basis to receive either adjunctive ketamine or saline in addition to standard anaesthesia for ECT. The primary neuropsychological outcome measure is anterograde verbal memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised delayed recall task) after 4 ECT treatments. Secondary cognitive outcomes include verbal fluency, autobiographical memory, visuospatial memory and digit span. Efficacy is assessed using observer and self-report efficacy measures of depressive symptomatology. The effects of ECT and ketamine on cortical activity during cognitive tasks will be studied in a sub-sample using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS).DiscussionThe ketamine-ECT study aims to establish whether or not adjunctive ketamine used together with standard anaesthesia for ECT will significantly reduce the adverse cognitive effects observed after ECT. Potential efficacy benefits of increased speed of symptom improvement and a reduction in the number of ECT treatments required will also be assessed, as will safety and tolerability of adjunctive ketamine. This study will provide important evidence as to whether adjunctive ketamine is routinely indicated for ECT given for depression in routine NHS clinical practice.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN14689382 (assigned 30/07/2012); EudraCT Number: 2011-005476-41

Cognitive-behavioural therapy and short-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy versus brief psychosocial intervention in adolescents with unipolar major depression (IMPACT): A multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Although there are effective psychological treatments for unipolar major depression in adolescents, whether or not one or more of the available therapies maintain reduced depressive symptoms 1 year after the end of treatment is not known. This is a non-trivial issue because maintaining lowered depressive symptoms below a clinical threshold level reduces the risk for diagnostic relapse into the adult years. OBJECTIVE To determine whether or not either of two specialist psychological treatments, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) or short-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy (STPP), is more effective than a reference brief psychosocial intervention (BPI) in maintaining reduction of depression symptoms in the year after treatment. DESIGN Observer-blind, parallel-group, pragmatic superiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING A total of 15 outpatient NHS clinics in the UK from East Anglia, north-west England and North London. PARTICIPANTS Adolescents aged 11-17 years with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition major depression including those with suicidality, depressive psychosis and conduct disorder. Patients were randomised using stochastic minimisation controlling for age, sex and self-reported depression sum score; 470 patients were randomised and 465 were included in the analyses. INTERVENTIONS In total, 154 adolescents received CBT, 156 received STPP and 155 received BPI. The trial lasted 86 weeks and study treatments were delivered in the first 36 weeks, with 52 weeks of follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Mean sum score on self-reported depressive symptoms (primary outcome) at final study assessment (nominally 86 weeks, at least 52 weeks after end of treatment). Secondary measures were change in mean sum scores on self-reported anxiety symptoms and researcher-rated Health of the Nation scales for children and adolescents measuring psychosocial function. Following baseline assessment, there were a further five planned follow-up reassessments at nominal time points of 6, 12, 52 and 86 weeks post randomisation. RESULTS There were non-inferiority effects of CBT compared with STPP [treatment effect by final follow-up = -0.578, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.948 to 4.104; p = 0.748]. There were no superiority effects for the two specialist treatments (CBT + STPP) compared with BPI (treatment effect by final follow-up = -1.898, 95% CI -4.922 to 1.126; p = 0.219). At final assessment there was no significant difference in the mean depressive symptom score between treatment groups. There was an average 49-52% reduction in depression symptoms by the end of the study. There were no differences in total costs or quality-of-life scores between treatment groups and prescribing a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) during treatment or follow-up did not differ between the therapy arms and, therefore, did not mediate the outcome. CONCLUSIONS The three psychological treatments differed markedly in theoretical and clinical approach and are associated with a similar degree of clinical improvement, cost-effectiveness and subsequent maintenance of lowered depressive symptoms. Both STPP and BPI offer an additional patient treatment choice, alongside CBT, for depressed adolescents attending specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Further research should focus on psychological mechanisms that are associated with treatment response, the maintenance of positive effects, determinants of non-response and whether or not brief psychotherapies are of use in primary care and community settings. LIMITATIONS Neither reason for SSRI prescribing or monitoring of medication compliance was controlled for over the course of the study, and the economic results were limited by missing data. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83033550. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Heath Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 12. See the National Institute for Heath Research Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the Department of Health. The funders had no role in the study design, patient recruitment, data collection, analysis or writing of the study, any aspect pertinent to the study or the decision to submit to The Lancet.

Developing a core outcome set for people living with dementia at home in their neighbourhoods and communities: study protocol for use in the evaluation of non-pharmacological community-based health and social care interventions

BackgroundThe key aim of the study is to establish an agreed standardised core outcome set (COS) for use when evaluating non-pharmacological health and social care interventions for people living at home with dementia.Methods/designDrawing on the guidance and approaches of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), this study uses a four-phase mixed-methods design:1Focus groups and interviews with key stakeholder groups (people living with dementia, care partners, relevant health and social care professionals, researchers and policymakers) and a review of the literature will be undertaken to build a long list of outcomes.2Two rounds of Delphi surveys will be used with key stakeholder groups. Statements for the Delphi surveys and participation processes will be developed and informed through substantial member involvement with people living with dementia and care partners. A consensus meeting will be convened with key participant groups to discuss the key findings and finalise the COS.3A systematic literature review will be undertaken to assess the properties of tools and instruments to assess components of the COS. Measurement properties, validity and reliability will be assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement (COSMIN) and COMET guidance.4A stated preference survey will elicit the preferences of key stakeholders for the outcomes identified as important to measure in the COS.DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use a modified Delphi process to involve people living with dementia as a participant group. Though the study is confined to collecting data in the United Kingdom, use of the COS by researchers will enhance the comparability of studies evaluating non-pharmacological and community-based interventions.Trial registrationThe study is registered on the COMET initiative, registered in 2014 at comet-initiative.org.

The feasibility and acceptability of a novel Anxiety in Bipolar Disorder (AIBD) intervention compared to treatment as usual: A randomised controlled trial

Comorbid anxiety is common in bipolar disorder (BD) and associated with worse clinical outcomes including increased suicidality. Despite effective psychological treatments for anxiety, research into treating anxiety in BD is underdeveloped. This paper describes a novel psychological intervention to address anxiety in context of bipolar disorder (AIBD).