Supported self-help to prevent relapse or recurrence of depression: Who benefits most?

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify subgroups for whom supported self-help preventive cognitive therapy (S-PCT) is more (cost)effective than treatment as usual (TAU) in preventing relapse and recurrence of major depression. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in which 248 remitted, recurrently depressed participants were randomized to S-PCT (n = 124) or TAU (n = 124). Clinical outcome was relapse or recurrence of major depressive disorder (SCID-I). We tested the moderating effects on relapse or recurrence of age, gender, education level, residual depressive symptoms, number of previous episodes, age of onset, antidepressant medication, somatization, and self-efficacy with logistic regression analyses adjusted for baseline values of depressive symptoms. We examined moderating effects on costs using linear regression analyses adjusted for baseline costs. A stratified cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to tease out differences in cost-effectiveness between subgroups. RESULTS: We found no moderating effect on relapse or recurrence for any of the potential moderators. For costs, the number of previous depressive episodes was identified as a moderator. At a willingness-to-pay of 16,000€, the probability that S-PCT was cost-effective compared to TAU was 95% for participants with 2-3 episodes and 11% for participants with ≥4 episodes. LIMITATIONS: Participants and counselors were not blinded. The study was primarily designed to assess the (cost)effectiveness of S-PCT and not to conduct moderation analyses. CONCLUSIONS: S-PCT was effective in preventing relapse or recurrence of depressive disorders in a broad range of participants, but is more likely to be cost-effective in participants with 2-3 episodes than ≥4 episodes. This indicates that S-PCT can best be offered to participants with fewer previous depressive episodes.

Collaborative Care for Anxiety Disorders in Primary Care: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

(Reprinted with permission from BMC Family Practice (2016) 17:62).

Long-term antidepressant use: a qualitative study on perspectives of patients and GPs in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant use is often prolonged in patients with anxiety and/or depressive disorder(s) compared with recommendations in treatment guidelines to discontinue after sustained remission. AIM: To unravel the motivations of patients and GPs causing long-term antidepressant use and to gain insight into possibilities to prevent unnecessary long-term use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with patients and GPs in the Netherlands. METHOD: Patients with anxiety and/or depressive disorder(s) (n = 38) and GPs (n = 26) were interviewed. Innovatively, the interplay between patients and their GPs was also investigated by means of patient-GP dyads (n = 20). RESULTS: The motives and barriers of patients and GPs to continue or discontinue antidepressants were related to the availability of supportive guidance during discontinuation, the personal circumstances of the patient, and considerations of the patient or GP. Importantly, dyads indicated a large variation in policies of general practices around long-term use and continuation or discontinuation of antidepressants. Dyads further indicated that patients and GPs seemed unaware of each other's (mismatching) expectations regarding responsibility to initiate discussing continuation or discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Although motives and barriers to antidepressant continuation or discontinuation were related to the same themes for patients and GPs, dyads indicated discrepancies between them. Discussion between patients and GPs about antidepressant use and continuation or discontinuation may help clarify mutual expectations and opinions. Agreements between a patient and their GP can be included in a patient-tailored treatment plan.

Mental health care use in medically unexplained and explained physical symptoms: findings from a general population study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore mental health care utilization patterns in primary and specialized mental health care of people with unexplained or explained physical symptoms. METHODS: Data were derived from the first wave of the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2, a nationally representative face-to-face cohort study among the general population aged 18-64 years. We selected subjects with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) only (MUSonly; n=177), explained physical symptoms only (PHYonly, n=1,952), combined MUS and explained physical symptoms (MUS + PHY, n=209), and controls without physical symptoms (NONE, n=4,168). We studied entry into mental health care and the number of treatment contacts for mental problems, in both primary care and specialized mental health care. Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and presence of any 12-month mental disorder assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0. RESULTS: At the primary care level, all three groups of subjects with physical symptoms showed entry into care for mental health problems significantly more often than controls. The adjusted odds ratios were 2.29 (1.33, 3.95) for MUSonly, 1.55 (1.13, 2.12) for PHYonly, and 2.25 (1.41, 3.57) for MUS + PHY. At the specialized mental health care level, this was the case only for MUSonly subjects (adjusted odds ratio 1.65 [1.04, 2.61]). In both the primary and specialized mental health care, there were no significant differences between the four groups in the number of treatment contacts once they entered into treatment. CONCLUSION: All sorts of physical symptoms, unexplained as well as explained, were associated with significant higher entry into primary care for mental problems. In specialized mental health care, this was true only for MUSonly. No differences were found in the number of treatment contacts. This warrants further research aimed at the content of the treatment contacts.

Collaborative care for anxiety disorders in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating collaborative care for anxiety disorders are recently emerging. A systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of collaborative care for adult patients with anxiety disorders in primary care is therefore warranted. METHODS: A literature search was performed. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Psycinfo, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane library. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of collaborative care for adult primary care patients with an anxiety disorder, compared to care as usual or another intervention. Synthesis methods: Standardized mean differences (SMD) on an anxiety scale closest to twelve months follow-up were calculated and pooled in a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 3073 studies found, seven studies were included with a total of 2105 participants. Included studies were of moderate to high quality. Collaborative care was superior to care as usual, with a small effect size (SMD = 0.35 95 % CI 0.14-0.56) for all anxiety disorders combined and a moderate effect size (SMD = 0.59, 95 % CI 0.41-0.78) in a subgroup analysis (five studies) on patients with panic disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care seems to be a promising strategy for improving primary care for anxiety disorders, in particular panic disorder. However, the number of studies is still small and further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness in other anxiety disorders.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of transmural collaborative care with consultation letter (TCCCL) and duloxetine for major depressive disorder (MDD) and (sub)chronic pain in collaboration with primary care: design of a randomized placebo-controlled multi-Centre trial: TCC:PAINDIP.

BACKGROUND: The comorbidity of pain and depression is associated with high disease burden for patients in terms of disability, wellbeing, and use of medical care. Patients with major and minor depression often present themselves with pain to a general practitioner and recognition of depression in such cases is low, but evolving. Also, physical symptoms, including pain, in major depressive disorder, predict a poorer response to treatment. A multi-faceted, patient-tailored treatment programme, like collaborative care, is promising. However, treatment of chronic pain conditions in depressive patients has, so far, received limited attention in research. Cost effectiveness of an integrated approach of pain in depressed patients has not been studied. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a placebo controlled double blind, three armed randomized multi centre trial. Patients with (sub)chronic pain and a depressive disorder are randomized to either a) collaborative care with duloxetine, b) collaborative care with placebo or c) duloxetine alone. 189 completers are needed to attain sufficient power to show a clinically significant effect of 0.6 SD on the primary outcome measures (PHQ-9 score). Data on depression, anxiety, mental and physical health, medication adherence, medication tolerability, quality of life, patient-doctor relationship, coping, health resource use and productivity will be collected at baseline and after three, six, nine and twelve months. DISCUSSION: This study enables us to show the value of a closely monitored integrated treatment model above usual pharmacological treatment. Furthermore, a comparison with a placebo arm enables us to evaluate effectiveness of duloxetine in this population in a real life setting. Also, this study will provide evidence-based treatments and tools for their implementation in practice. This will facilitate generalization and implementation of results of this study. Moreover, patients included in this study are screened for pain symptoms, differentiating between nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Therefore, pain relief can be thoroughly evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR1089.

The course of untreated anxiety and depression, and determinants of poor one-year outcome: a one-year cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the course and outcome of untreated anxiety and depression in patients with and without a self-perceived need for care. The aim of the present study was to examine the one-year course of untreated anxiety and depression, and to determine predictors of a poor outcome. METHOD: Baseline and one-year follow-up data were used of 594 primary care patients with current anxiety or depressive disorders at baseline (established by the Composite Interview Diagnostic Instrument (CIDI)), from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Receipt of and need for care were assessed by the Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire (PNCQ). RESULTS: In depression, treated and untreated patients with a perceived treatment need showed more rapid symptom decline but greater symptom severity at follow-up than untreated patients without a self-perceived mental problem or treatment need. A lower education level, lower income, unemployment, loneliness, less social support, perceived need for care, number of somatic disorders, a comorbid anxiety and depressive disorder and symptom severity at baseline predicted a poorer outcome in both anxiety and depression. When all variables were considered at the same time, only baseline symptom severity appeared to predict a poorer outcome in anxiety. In depression, a poorer outcome was also predicted by more loneliness and a comorbid anxiety and depressive disorder. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, special attention should be paid to exploring the need for care among possible risk groups (e.g. low social economic status, low social support), and support them in making an informed decision on whether or not to seek treatment.