Eye-movement desensitisation and reprocessing therapy (EMDR) to prevent transition to psychosis in people with an at-risk mental state (ARMS): mixed method feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Trauma plays an important role in the development of psychosis, but no studies have investigated whether a trauma-focused therapy could prevent psychosis. AIMS: This study aimed to establish whether it would be feasible to conduct a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to prevent psychosis in people with an at-risk mental state (ARMS), using eye-movement desensitisation and reprocessing therapy (EMDR). METHOD: This started as a mixed-method randomised study comparing EMDR to treatment as usual but, as a result of low participant recruitment, was changed to a single-arm feasibility study. The proposed primary outcome for an RCT was transition to psychosis at 12-month follow-up. Data on secondary outcomes were also collected. Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients and therapists. RESULTS: Fourteen participants were recruited from the Early Intervention teams. Most people who expressed an interest in taking part attended an assessment to determine eligibility. All those eligible consented to take part. A total of 64% (7 of 11) of participants who were offered EMDR were followed up at 12 months. Of the 11 participants offered EMDR, one (11%, 95% CI: 0.2%, 48%) transitioned to psychosis. Nine patients and three therapists were interviewed. Participants who completed therapy (n = 4; mean 10.5 sessions) found EMDR helpful, but those who discontinued (n = 6; mean 5.2 sessions) said it had not benefitted them overall. Therapists said EMDR could be effective, although not for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies recruiting people with an ARMS to an RCT may need to extend recruitment beyond Early Intervention teams. Although some individuals found EMDR helpful, reasons for discontinuing need to be addressed in future studies.

The identification and management of people with an at-risk mental state (ARMS) for psychosis in primary and secondary care services: A qualitative interview study.

AIMS: Early intervention in people with an at-risk mental state (ARMS) for psychosis can prevent the onset of psychosis. Clinical guidelines recommend that ARMS are referred to triage services, and then to Early Intervention (EI) teams in secondary care for assessment and treatment. However, little is known about how ARMS patients are identified and managed in UK primary and secondary care. This study explored patients' and clinicians' views of ARMS patients' care pathways. METHODS: Eleven patients, 20 GPs, 11 clinicians from the triaging Primary Care Liaison Services (PCLS) and 10 EI clinicians were interviewed. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Most patients said their symptoms started in adolescence with depression and anxiety. Before being referred to EI teams, most patients were referred by their GP to well-being services for talking therapies, which they had not found helpful. Some GPs said secondary care's high acceptance thresholds and scarce treatment availability made them reluctant to refer to EI teams. Triage in PCLS was influenced by patients' risk of self-harm, and formulation of psychotic symptoms; only those without clear evidence of other pathology and not at high risk of self-harm were referred to EI teams, the others being referred to Recovery/Crisis services. Although patients referred to EI teams were offered an assessment, only some EI teams were commissioned to treat ARMS. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals meeting ARMS criteria might not receive early intervention due to high treatment thresholds and limited treatment availability in secondary care, suggesting clinical guidelines are not being met for this patient group.

Identifying patients at risk of psychosis: a qualitative study of GP views in South West England.

BACKGROUND: Early intervention in people with an at-risk mental state for psychosis can decrease the rates of transition to psychosis. GPs play a key role in the identification of this patient group but very few studies have explored GPs' awareness of patients who are at risk of psychosis. AIM: To explore GPs' views and experiences of identifying patients with an at-risk mental state for psychosis, and the barriers and facilitators to identification. DESIGN AND SETTING: In-depth semi-structured interviews were held with GPs working in South West England primary care. The interviews were conducted between March and July 2019. METHOD: A topic guide was used to ensure consistency across interviews. This guide was revised to incorporate a definition of the at-risk mental state for psychosis, as after conducting a few interviews it became clear that some GPs were not familiar with this construct. Interviews were audiorecorded and analysed thematically. RESULTS: A total of 20 GPs were interviewed. Some GPs were not familiar with the concept of being at risk of developing psychosis, and perceived that they may not have the right skills to identify this patient group. Other barriers related to patients not presenting or disclosing psychotic symptoms, and limitations imposed by scarce resources on the structure and provision of NHS services, such as lack of continuity of care and high thresholds for accessing specialised services. CONCLUSION: Identifying people at risk of psychosis in primary care is difficult. Provision of GP training, development of policies that support continuity of care, and improved access to specialised services could help improve the identification of this patient group.

Feasibility study of eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) in people with an at-risk mental state (ARMS) for psychosis: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma can play an important role in the development of psychosis, yet no studies have investigated whether a trauma-focused psychological therapy could prevent the onset of psychosis in people at high risk of developing this condition. This study aims to establish whether it would be feasible to conduct a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy to prevent the onset of psychosis in people with an at-risk mental state (ARMS). METHODS/ANALYSIS: This is a single-arm trial with a nested qualitative study where all participants (target n=20) will be offered EMDR. Eligible participants are those who meet criteria for ARMS; have experienced a traumatic event before the onset of ARMS symptomatology; and have at least one symptom of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Participants will be followed up at 4, 8 and 12 months after the baseline assessment. The primary outcome measure is transition to psychosis, and secondary outcome measures include severity of psychotic symptoms, PTSD, depression, anxiety, impaired functioning, health status and resource use. The analysis will aim to establish the rates of recruitment and retention for a large-scale RCT. Interviews with therapists and patients will explore their views of the study and their experiences of delivering or receiving EMDR. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the South West-Cornwall and Plymouth Research Ethics Committee (Reference 18/SW/0037). Findings will be disseminated through journal publications, conference presentations and meetings with service users, their families, mental health professionals and commissioners. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN31976295.

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.

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).