A high physical symptom count reduces the effectiveness of treatment for depression, independently of chronic medical conditions.

AIM: To assess to what extent a high physical symptom count influences the effect of treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), and whether or not actual comorbid medical conditions explain this relationship. METHOD: Secondary data-analysis on a cluster-randomized trial in primary care, comparing the effectiveness of collaborative care with care as usual (CAU). MDD was measured using the PHQ-9. The Physical Symptoms Questionnaire (PSQ) was filled out at baseline by 115 patients (77.2% of those who entered the trial). Multilevel logistic regression models were used to test whether a high physical symptom count predicted lack of response to treatment, adding interaction terms to test differential effects on collaborative care versus CAU. RESULTS: A high physical symptom count negatively influenced the effect of both collaborative care and care as usual (no interaction). Specifically, a high physical symptom count predicted lack of response in both conditions at 3 (odds ratio=6.8), 6 (OR=4.1), and 9 months follow-up (OR=6.4). This was not explained by chronic physical illness. CONCLUSION: In this RCT, patients with MDD accompanied by a high physical symptom count benefited less from treatment for MDD in primary care, regardless of the type of treatment (either collaborative care or CAU). This was not explained by the presence of comorbid medical conditions. Further research is needed to improve treatment for MDD accompanied by a high physical symptom count, although collaborative care for depression is still more effective than CAU for this group of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register ISRCTN15266438.

A target-driven collaborative care model for Major Depressive Disorder is effective in primary care in the Netherlands. A randomized clinical trial from the depression initiative.

BACKGROUND: Practice variation in the primary care treatment of depression may be considerable in the Netherlands, due to relatively small and unregulated practices. We adapted the collaborative care model for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) to accommodate existing practice variation and tested whether this had added value over Care as Usual (CAU). METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare an adapted target driven collaborative care model with Care as Usual (CAU). Randomization was at the level of 18 (sub)urban primary care centers. The care manager and GP were supported by a web-based tracking and decision aid system that advised targeted treatment actions to achieve rapid response and if possible remission, and that warned the consultant psychiatrist if such treatment advice was not followed up. Eligible patients had a score of 10 or higher on the PHQ9, and met diagnostic criteria for major depression at the subsequent MINI Neuropsychiatric interview. A total of 93 patients were identified by screening. They received either collaborative care (CC) or CAU. Another 56 patients received collaborative care after identification by the GP. The outcome measures were response to treatment (50% or greater reduction of the PHQ9-total score from baseline) at three, six, nine and twelve months, and remission (a score of 0-4 on the PHQ9 at follow-up). RESULTS: Treatment response and remission in CAU were low. Collaborative care was more effective on achieving treatment response than CAU at three months for the total group of patients who received collaborative care [OR 5.2 ((1.41-16.09), NNT 2] and at nine months [OR 5.6 ((1.40-22.58)), NNT 3]. The effect was not statistically significant at 6 and 12 months. LIMITATIONS: A relatively high percentage of patients (36.5%) did not return one or more follow-up questionnaires. There was no evidence for selective non response. CONCLUSIONS: Our adapted target driven CC was considerably more effective than CAU for MDD in primary care in the Netherlands. The Numbers Needed To Treat (NNT) to achieve response in one additional patient were low (2-3), which suggest that introducing CC at a larger scale may be beneficial. The relatively large effects may be due to our focus on reducing practice variation through the introduction of easy to use web based tracking and decision aids. The findings are highly relevant for the application of the model in areas where practices tend to be small and for mixed healthcare systems such as in many countries in Europe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register ISRCTN15266438 (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=820).

Faster return to work after psychiatric consultation for sicklisted employees with common mental disorders compared to care as usual. A randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Return to work (RTW) of employees on sick leave for common mental disorders may require a multidisciplinary approach. This article aims to assess time to RTW after a psychiatric consultation providing treatment advice to the occupational physician (OP) for employees on sick leave for common mental disorders in the occupational health (OH) setting, compared to care as usual (CAU). METHODS: Cluster randomized clinical trial evaluating patients of 12 OPs receiving consultation by a psychiatrist, compared to CAU delivered by 12 OPs in the control group. 60 patients suffering from common mental disorders and ≥ six weeks sicklisted were included. Follow up three and six months after inclusion. Primary outcome measure was time to RTW. Intention- to-treat multilevel analysis and a survival analysis were performed to evaluate time to RTW in both groups. RESULTS: In CAU, referral was the main intervention. Both groups improved in terms of symptom severity and quality of life, but time to RTW was significantly shorter in the psychiatric consultation group. At three months follow up, 58% of the psychiatric consultation group had full RTW versus 44% of the control group, a significant finding (P = 0.0093). Survival analysis showed 68 days earlier RTW after intervention in the psychiatric consultation group (P = 0.078) compared to CAU. CONCLUSION: Psychiatric consultation for employees on sick leave in the OH setting improves time to RTW in patients with common mental disorders as compared to CAU. In further research, focus should be on early intervention in patients with common mental disorders on short sick leave duration. Psychiatric consultation might be particularly promising for improvement of RTW in those patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 86722376.

Negative association of concomitant physical symptoms with the course of major depressive disorder: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The prognosis of depression greatly varies among patients, and the physical symptoms that often accompany depression may predict treatment resistance and a worse outcome. If so, this may have important clinical implications. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the association of concomitant physical symptoms with the outcome of major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Systematic review: Medline, Psychinfo, and the Cochrane Library were searched for prospective, cross-sectional, and retrospective studies, and also for open-label trials and randomized controlled trials. The risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed in duplicate. A qualitative best-evidence synthesis was performed, based on the number of studies reporting on the association between physical symptoms and the course of MDD, the consistency of the results, and the methodological quality. The findings were reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Although the design, outcome measures, and data presentation varied too much to make statistical pooling possible, the best evidence synthesis resulted in strong, consistent evidence for a negative association between physical symptoms and the course of MDD. CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows a negative association of concomitant physical symptoms with the course of MDD. The effect might be considerable, but the number of studies addressing this topic is small and there was a wide variation in the study designs and outcome measures. More research is needed.

The Depression Initiative. Description of a collaborative care model for depression and of the factors influencing its implementation in the primary care setting in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In the Depression Initiative, a promising collaborative care model for depression that was developed in the US was adapted for implementation in the Netherlands. AIM: Description of a collaborative care model for major depressive disorder (MDD) and of the factors influencing its implementation in the primary care setting in the Netherlands. DATA SOURCES: Data collected during the preparation phase of the CC:DIP trial of the Depression Initiative, literature, policy documents, information sheets from professional associations. RESULTS: Factors facilitating the implementation of the collaborative care model are continuous supervision of the care managers by the consultant psychiatrist and the trainers, a supportive web-based tracking system and the new reimbursement system that allows for introduction of a mental health care-practice nurse (MHC-PN) in the general practices and coverage of the treatment costs. Impeding factors might be the relatively high percentage of solo-primary care practices, the small percentage of professionals that are located in the same building, unfamiliarity with the concept of collaboration as required for collaborative care, the reimbursement system that demands regular negotiations between each health care provider and the insurance companies and the reluctance general practitioners might feel to expand their responsibility for their depressed patients. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the collaborative care model in the Netherlands requires extensive training and supervision on micro level, facilitation of reimbursement on meso- and macro level and structural effort to change the treatment culture for chronic mental disorders in the primary care setting.

Randomised controlled trial of a psychiatric consultation model for treatment of common mental disorder in the occupational health setting.

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders are the most prevalent of all mental disorders, with the highest burden in terms of work absenteeism and utilization of health care services. Evidence-based treatments are available, but recognition and treatment could be improved, especially in the occupational health setting. The situation in this setting has recently changed in the Netherlands because of new legislation, which has resulted in reduced sickness absence. Severe mental disorder has now become one of the main causes of work absenteeism. Occupational physicians (OPs) are expected to take an active role in diagnosis and treatment, and seem to be in need of support for a new approach to handle cases of more complex mental disorders. Psychiatric consultation can be a collaborative care model to achieve this. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a two-armed cluster-randomized clinical trial, with randomization among OPs. Forty OPs in two big companies providing medical care for multiple companies will be randomized to either the intervention group, i.e. psychiatric consultation embedded in a training programme, or the control group, i.e. only training aimed at recognition and providing Care As Usual. 60 patients will be included who have been absent from work for 6-52 weeks and who, after screening and a MINI interview, are diagnosed with depressive disorder, anxiety disorder or somatoform disorder based on DSM-IV criteria. Baseline measurements and follow up measurements (at 3 months and 6 months) will be assessed with questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is level of general functioning according to the SF-20. Secondary measures are severity of the mental disorder according to the PHQ and the SCL-90, quality of life (EQ-D5), measures of Return To Work and cost-effectiveness of the treatment assessed with the TiC-P. Process measures will be adherence to the treatment plan and assessment of the treatment provided by the Psychiatric Consultant (PC) in both groups. DISCUSSION: In the current study, a psychiatric consultation model that has already proved to be effective in the primary care setting, and aimed to enhance evidence-based care for patients with work absenteeism and common mental disorder will be evaluated for its efficacy and cost-effectiveness in the occupational health setting.