Helen Mander

Effects of cognitive behaviour therapy for worry on persecutory delusions in patients with psychosis (WIT): a parallel, single-blind, randomised controlled trial with a mediation analysis.

Summary Background Worry might be a contributory causal factor in the occurrence of persecutory delusions in patients with psychotic disorders. Therefore we postulated that reducing worry with cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) would reduce persecutory delusions. Methods For our two-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial (Worry Intervention Trial [WIT]), we recruited patients aged 18–65 years with persistent persecutory delusions but non-affective psychosis from two centres: the Oxford Health National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust (Oxford, UK) and the Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust (Southampton, UK). The key inclusion criteria for participants were a score of at least 3 on the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS) denoting a current persecutory delusion; that the delusion had persisted for at least 3 months; a clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder; and a clinically significant level of worry. We randomly assigned (1:1) eligible patients, using a randomly permuted block procedure with variable block sizes and division by four strata, to either six sessions of worry-reduction CBT intervention done over 8 weeks added to standard care (the CBT-intervention group), or to standard care alone (the control group). The assessors were masked to patient allocations and did their assessments at week 0 (baseline), 8 weeks (end of treatment), and 24 weeks, follow-up. The primary outcomes were worry measured by the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) and delusions measured by the PSYRATS-delusion scale; we did the analyses in the intention-to-treat population, and also did a planned mediation analysis. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (number ISRCTN23197625) and is closed to new participants. Findings From Nov 1, 2011, to Sept 9, 2013, we recruited 150 eligible participants and randomly assigned 73 to the CBT intervention group, and 77 to the control group. 143 patients (95%) provided primary outcome follow-up data. Compared with standard care alone, at 8 weeks the CBT intervention significantly reduced worry (mean difference 6·35 [SE 1·56] PSWQ units, 95% CI 3·30–9·40; p<0·001) and persecutory delusions (2·08 [SE 0·73] PSYRATS units, 95% CI 0·64–3·51; p=0·005). The reductions were maintained to 24 weeks follow-up. The mediation analysis suggested that the change in worry accounted for 66% of the change in delusion. No patients died or were admitted to secure units during our study. Six suicide attempts (two in the CBT intervention group, and four in the control group) and two serious violent incidents (one in each group) were noted, but no adverse events were deemed related to the treatments or the assessments. Interpretation To our knowledge, this is the first large trial focused on persecutory delusions. We have shown that long-standing delusions were significantly reduced by a brief intervention targeted on worry, although the limitations for our study include no determination of the key elements within the intervention. Our results suggest that worry might cause paranoia, and that worry intervention techniques might be a beneficial addition to the standard treatment of psychosis. Funding Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, which is a UK Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research partnership.

Randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors plus supportive care, versus supportive care alone, for mild to moderate depression with somatic symptoms in primary care: the THREAD (THREshold for AntiDepressant response) study

OBJECTIVES To determine (1) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment plus supportive care, versus supportive care alone, for mild to moderate depression in patients with somatic symptoms in primary care; and (2) the impact of the initial severity of depression on effectiveness and relative costs. To investigate the impact of demographic and social variables. DESIGN The study was a parallel group, open-label, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING The study took place in a UK primary care setting. Patients were referred by 177 GPs from 115 practices around three academic centres. PARTICIPANTS Patients diagnosed with new episodes of depression and potentially in need of treatment. In total, 602 patients were referred to the study team, of whom 220 were randomised. INTERVENTIONS GPs were asked to provide supportive care to all participants in follow-up consultations 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks after the baseline assessment, to prescribe an SSRI of their choice to patients in the SSRI plus supportive care arm and to continue treatment for at least 4 months after recovery. They could switch antidepressants during treatment if necessary. They were asked to refrain from prescribing an antidepressant to those in the supportive care alone arm during the first 12 weeks but could prescribe to these patients if treatment became necessary. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score at 12-week follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were scores on HDRS at 26-week follow-up, Beck Depression Inventory, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS), modified Client Service Receipt Inventory and medical record data. RESULTS SSRIs were received by 87% of patients in the SSRI plus supportive care arm and 20% in the supportive care alone arm. Longitudinal analyses demonstrated statistically significant differences in favour of the SSRI plus supportive care arm in terms of lower HDRS scores and higher scores on the SF-36 and MISS. Significant mean differences in HDRS score adjusted for baseline were found at both follow-up points when analysed separately but were relatively small. The numbers needed to treat for remission (to HDRS > 8) were 6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4 to 26)] at 12 weeks and 6 (95% CI 3 to 31) at 26 weeks, and for significant improvement (HDRS reduction > or = 50%) were 7 (95% CI 4 to 83) and 5 (95% CI 3 to 13) respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness planes suggested that adding an SSRI to supportive care was probably cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for utility suggested that adding an SSRI to supportive care was cost-effective at the values of 20,000 pounds-30,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year. A poorer outcome on the HDRS was significantly related to greater severity at baseline, a higher physical symptom score and being unemployed. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with an SSRI plus supportive care is more effective than supportive care alone for patients with mild to moderate depression, at least for those with symptoms persisting for 8 weeks and an HRDS score of > or = 12. The additional benefit is relatively small, and may be at least in part a placebo effect, but is probably cost-effective at the level used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to make judgements about recommending treatments within the National Health Service. However, further research is required.

The evolution of cognitive–behavioral therapy for psychosis

Cognitive therapy for psychosis has developed over the past 30 years from initial case studies, treatment manuals, pilot randomized controlled studies to fully powered and methodologically rigorous efficacy and, subsequently, effectiveness trials. Reviews and meta-analyses have confirmed the benefits of the interventions. Considered appraisal by government and professional organizations has now led to its inclusion in international treatment guidelines for schizophrenia. Patients consistently ask for access to psychotherapeutic interventions, and it is slowly becoming available in many European countries and other parts of the world, eg, US and the People’s Republic of China. However, it remains unacceptably difficult to access for the vast majority of people with psychosis who could benefit from it. Psychosis affects people in the prime of their lives and leads to major effects on their levels of distress, well-being, and functioning, and also results in major costs to society. Providing effective interventions at an early stage has the potential to reduce the high relapse rates that occur after recovery from first episode and the ensuing morbidity and premature mortality associated with psychosis.

Depersonalization in patients with persecutory delusions.

Abstract Delusions are, in part, attempts to explain confusing anomalous experience. Depersonalization, a key subset of anomalous experience, has been little studied in relation to persecutory delusions. The aims of this study were to assess the presence of depersonalization in patients with persecutory delusions and to examine associations with levels of paranoia and worry. Fifty patients with a current persecutory delusion completed measures of depersonalization, psychotic symptoms, and worry. Depersonalization experiences were common: 30 patients (60%) each reported at least 10 different depersonalization symptoms occurring often. A greater number of depersonalization experiences were associated with higher levels of paranoia and worry. The positive association of worry and paranoia became nonsignificant when controlling for depersonalization. Overall, depersonalization may be common in patients with persecutory delusions and is associated with the severity of paranoia. The results are consistent with the view that worry may cause depersonalization experiences that contribute to the occurrence of paranoid thoughts.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

This article is a revision of the previous edition article by C.J. Mace, volume 3, pp. 2075–2080,

Cognitive behavioural therapy in clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (FOCUS): an assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial

Summary Background Although clozapine is the treatment of choice for treatment-refractory schizophrenia, 30–40% of patients have an insufficient response, and others are unable to tolerate it. Evidence for any augmentation strategies is scarce. We aimed to determine whether cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia. Methods We did a pragmatic, parallel group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in community-based and inpatient mental health services in five sites in the UK. Patients with schizophrenia who were unable to tolerate clozapine, or whose symptoms did not respond to the drug, were randomly assigned 1:1 by use of randomised-permuted blocks of size four or six, stratified by centre, to either CBT plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. Research assistants were masked to allocation to protect against rater bias and allegiance bias. The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months, which provides a continuous measure of symptoms of schizophrenia; PANSS total was also assessed at the end of treatment (9 months). The primary analysis was by randomised treatment based on intention to treat, for all patients for whom data were available. This study was prospectively registered, number ISRCTN99672552. The trial is closed to accrual. Findings From Jan 1, 2013, to May 31, 2015, we randomly assigned 487 participants to either CBT and treatment as usual (n=242) or treatment as usual alone (n=245). Analysis included 209 in the CBT group and 216 in the treatment as usual group. No difference occurred in the primary outcome (PANSS total at 21 months, mean difference −0·89, 95% CI −3·32 to 1·55; p=0·48), although the CBT group improved at the end of treatment (PANSS total at 9 months, mean difference −2·40, −4·79 to −0·02; p=0·049). During the trial, 107 (44%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and 104 (42%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had at least one adverse event (odds ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·81 to 1·46; p=0·58). Only two (1%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and one (<1%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had a trial-related serious adverse event. Interpretation At 21-month follow-up, CBT did not have a lasting effect on total symptoms of schizophrenia compared with treatment as usual; however, CBT produced statistically, though not clinically, significant improvements on total symptoms by the end of treatment. There was no indication that the addition of CBT to treatment as usual caused adverse effects. The results of this trial do not support a recommendation to routinely offer CBT to all people who meet criteria for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia; however, a pragmatic individual trial might be indicated for some. Funding National Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment programme.