Preliminary clinical and cost effectiveness of augmented depression therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of anhedonic depression (ADepT): a single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, pilot, randomised, controlled trial.

Background: Anhedonia (reduced interest/pleasure) symptoms and wellbeing deficits are core to depression and predict a poor prognosis. Current depression psychotherapies fail to target these features adequately, contributing to sub-optimal outcomes. Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT) has been developed to target anhedonia and wellbeing. We aimed to establish clinical and economic proof of concept for ADepT and to examine feasibility of a future definitive trial comparing ADepT to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). Methods: In this single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial, adults meeting diagnostic criteria for a current major depressive episode, scoring ≥10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and exhibiting anhedonic features (PHQ-9 item 1 ≥ 2) were recruited primarily from high intensity Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) service waiting lists in Devon, UK. Participants were randomised to receive 20 sessions of CBT or ADepT, using a mimimisation algorithm to balance depression severity and antidepressant use between groups. Treatment was delivered in an out-patient university-based specialist mood disorder clinic. Researcher-blinded assessments were completed at intake and six, 12, and 18 months. Co-primary outcomes were depression (PHQ-9) and wellbeing (Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale) at 6 months. Primary clinical proof-of-concept analyses were intention to treat. Feasibility (including safety) and health economic analyses used complete case data. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN85278228. Findings: Between 3/29/2017 and 7/31/2018, 82 individuals were recruited (102% of target sample) and 41 individuals were allocated to each arm. A minimum adequate treatment dose was completed by 36/41 (88%) of CBT and 35/41 (85%) of ADepT participants. There were two serious adverse events in each arm (primarily suicide attempts; none of which were judged to be trial- or treatment-related), with no other evidence of harms. Intake and six-month primary outcome data was available for 37/41 (90%) CBT participants and 32/41 (78%) ADepT participants. Between-group effects favoured ADepT over CBT for depression (meanΔ = -1.35, 95% CI = -3.70, 1.00, d = 0.23) and wellbeing (meanΔ = 2.64, 95% CI = -1.71, 6.99, d = 0.27). At 18 months, the advantage of ADepT over CBT was preserved and ADepT had a >80% probability of cost-effectiveness. Interpretation: These findings provide proof of concept for ADepT and warrant continuation to definitive trial. Funding: NIHR Career Development Fellowship.

How well do Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Behavioural Activation for depression repair anhedonia? A secondary analysis of the COBRA randomized controlled trial.

A secondary analysis of the COBRA randomized controlled trial was conducted to examine how well Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Behavioural Activation (BA) repair anhedonia. Patients with current major depressive disorder (N = 440) were randomized to receive BA or CBT, and anhedonia and depression outcomes were measured after acute treatment (six months) and at two further follow up intervals (12 and 18 months). Anhedonia was assessed using the Snaith Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS; a measure of consummatory pleasure). Both CBT and BA led to significant improvements in anhedonia during acute treatment, with no significant difference between treatments. Participants remained above healthy population averages of anhedonia at six months, and there was no further significant improvement in anhedonia at 12-month or 18-month follow up. Greater baseline anhedonia severity predicted reduced repair of depression symptoms and fewer depression-free days across the follow-up period in both the BA and CBT arms. The extent of anhedonia repair was less marked than the extent of depression repair across both treatment arms. These findings demonstrate that CBT and BA are similarly and only partially effective in treating anhedonia. Therefore, both therapies should be further refined or novel treatments should be developed in order better to treat anhedonia.

Knowledge needs and use in long-term care homes for older people: A qualitative interview study of managers' views.

We explore the views of managers' knowledge needs and use to optimise care practices and enhance the life experience for older people living, and staff working, in long-term care homes (with and without nursing). This paper contributes to previous research by offering insights into the knowledge types drawn upon and used by managers to inform efforts to better support gaining and mobilising knowledge. Using a pragmatic qualitative approach, we undertook 19 semi-structured interviews with managers and leaders in 15 care homes in the South West of England, varying in geographical location, size and type of ownership. We did a thematic analysis of the data using Framework Analysis. Our interpretations were informed by the existing literature on knowledge types. We identified three themes from our analysis as to managers' knowledge needs and use when implementing changes. First, views about training and formal reports or "explicit knowledge" consisting of the two sub-themes "gaining explicit knowledge" and "research knowledge". Second, perspectives relating to practical experience or "tacit knowledge" and judging the use of knowledge in particular cases or "phronesis". Third, the role of emotion in managers' knowledge needs and use. We found that having knowledge was positively valued by managers and leaders for improving care practices and enhancing the lives of people residing in care homes. Tacit knowledge and phronesis were particularly highly valued and we note challenges with the perceived applicability, relevance and use of research evidence. We identify that emotions are an important component within knowledge use and a need to further understand how to support the emotional wellbeing of managers so they can support care staff and residents. Greater consideration is needed as to how to optimise gaining and mobilising all knowledge types - "know-what," "know-how," "know-when" and "know-feel" - to benefit people living, and staff working, in care homes.

COVID-NURSE: evaluation of a fundamental nursing care protocol compared with care as usual on experience of care for noninvasively ventilated patients in hospital with the SARS-CoV-2 virus-protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patient experience of nursing care is correlated with safety, clinical effectiveness, care quality, treatment outcomes and service use. Effective nursing care includes actions to develop nurse-patient relationships and deliver physical and psychosocial care to patients. The high risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus compromises nursing care. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, leading to potential variations in patient experience, outcomes, quality and costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: we aim to recruit 840 in-patient participants treated for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus from 14 UK hospitals, to a cluster randomised controlled trial, with embedded process and economic evaluations, of care as usual and a fundamental nursing care protocol addressing specific areas of physical, relational and psychosocial nursing care where potential variation may occur, compared with care as usual. Our coprimary outcomes are patient-reported experience (Quality from the Patients' Perspective; Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire); secondary outcomes include care quality (pressure injuries, falls, medication errors); functional ability (Barthell Index); treatment outcomes (WHO Clinical Progression Scale); depression Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), anxiety General Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2), health utility (EQ5D) and nurse-reported outcomes (Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals). For our primary analysis, we will use a standard generalised linear mixed-effect model adjusting for ethnicity of the patient sample and research intensity at cluster level. We will also undertake a planned subgroup analysis to compare the impact of patient-level ethnicity on our primary and secondary outcomes and will undertake process and economic evaluations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research governance and ethical approvals are from the UK National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Service. Dissemination will be open access through peer-reviewed scientific journals, study website, press and online media, including free online training materials on the Open University's FutureLearn web platform. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13177364; Pre-results.

Associations Between Systolic Interarm Differences in Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes and Mortality: Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis, Development and Validation of a Prognostic Algorithm: The INTERPRESS-IPD Collaboration.

Systolic interarm differences in blood pressure have been associated with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease. We undertook individual participant data meta-analyses to (1) quantify independent associations of systolic interarm difference with mortality and cardiovascular events; (2) develop and validate prognostic models incorporating interarm difference, and (3) determine whether interarm difference remains associated with risk after adjustment for common cardiovascular risk scores. We searched for studies recording bilateral blood pressure and outcomes, established agreements with collaborating authors, and created a single international dataset: the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference - Individual Participant Data (INTERPRESS-IPD) Collaboration. Data were merged from 24 studies (53 827 participants). Systolic interarm difference was associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: continuous hazard ratios 1.05 (95% CI, 1.02-1.08) and 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02-1.11), respectively, per 5 mm Hg systolic interarm difference. Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality increased with interarm difference magnitude from a ≥5 mm Hg threshold (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.01-1.14]). Systolic interarm differences per 5 mm Hg were associated with cardiovascular events in people without preexisting disease, after adjustment for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.08]), Framingham (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.01-1.08]), or QRISK cardiovascular disease risk algorithm version 2 (QRISK2) (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.06-1.18]) cardiovascular risk scores. Our findings confirm that systolic interarm difference is associated with increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events. Blood pressure should be measured in both arms during cardiovascular assessment. A systolic interarm difference of 10 mm Hg is proposed as the upper limit of normal. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42015031227.

Bringing light into darkness: A multiple baseline mixed methods case series evaluation of Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT).

Two core features of depression are elevations in negative valence system (NVS) functioning and reductions in positive valence system (PVS) functioning. Existing psychological treatments have focused on the NVS and neglected the PVS, which may contribute to sub-optimal outcomes. The present mixed methods multiple randomised baseline case series preliminarily evaluates Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT), a novel depression treatment targeting PVS and NVS disturbance, that aims both to reduce depression and enhance wellbeing. Eleven clinically depressed participants were recruited. Intensive time series analyses showed that 7/11 participants improved on both wellbeing and depression. Reliable and clinically significant improvement was observed for 9/11 participants on at least one of these outcomes (and also across a range of other PVS and NVS outcomes). Group level analyses showed significant pre to post change on all outcomes. Benchmarking analyses indicated these effect sizes were at least comparable (and for some PVS outcomes superior) to existing treatments. Gains were largely sustained over one-year follow-up. Qualitative interviews indicated ADepT was feasible and acceptable. These findings provide preliminary support for ADepT as a novel depression treatment. Further evaluation, directly comparing ADepT to existing treatments using randomised controlled trial designs, is now required.

Evaluating Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While existing psychological treatments for depression are effective for many, a significant proportion of depressed individuals do not respond to current approaches and few remain well over the long-term. Anhedonia (a loss of interest or pleasure) is a core symptom of depression which predicts a poor prognosis but has been neglected by existing treatments. Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT) has been co-designed with service users to better target anhedonia alongside other features of depression. This mixed methods pilot trial aims to establish proof of concept for ADepT and to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a future definitive trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ADepT, compared to an evidence-based mainstream therapy (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy; CBT) in the acute treatment of depression, the prevention of subsequent depressive relapse, and the enhancement of wellbeing. METHODS: We aim to recruit 80 depressed participants and randomise them 1:1 to receive ADepT (15 weekly acute and 5 booster sessions in following year) or CBT (20 weekly acute sessions). Clinical and health economic assessments will take place at intake and at 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up. Reductions in PHQ-9 depression severity and increases in WEMWBS wellbeing at 6-month assessment (when acute treatment should be completed) are the co-primary outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative process evaluation will assess mechanism of action, implementation issues, and contextual moderating factors. To evaluate proof of concept, intake-post effect sizes and the proportion of individuals showing reliable and clinically significant change on outcome measures in each arm at each follow-up will be reported. To evaluate feasibility and acceptability, we will examine recruitment, retention, treatment completion, and data completeness rates and feedback from patients and therapists about their experience of study participation and therapy. Additionally, we will establish the cost of delivery of ADepT. DISCUSSION: We will proceed to definitive trial if any concerns about the safety, acceptability, feasibility, and proof of concept of ADepT and trial procedures can be rectified, and we recruit, retain, and collect follow-up data on at least 60% of the target sample. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCRTN85278228, registered 27/03/2017.

Cost and Outcome of BehaviouRal Activation (COBRA): a randomised controlled trial of behavioural activation versus cognitive-behavioural therapy for depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common, debilitating and costly disorder. The best-evidenced psychological therapy - cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) - is complex and costly. A simpler therapy, behavioural activation (BA), may be an effective alternative. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for depressed adults at 12 and 18 months' follow-up, and to investigate the processes of treatments. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial stratified by depression severity, antidepressant use and recruitment site, with embedded process evaluation; and randomisation by remote computer-generated allocation. SETTING: Three community mental health services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with major depressive disorder (MDD) recruited from primary care and psychological therapy services. INTERVENTIONS: BA delivered by NHS junior mental health workers (MHWs); CBT by NHS psychological therapists. OUTCOMES: Primary: depression severity (as measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PHQ-9) at 12 months. Secondary: MDD status; number of depression-free days; anxiety (as measured via the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7); health-related quality of life (as measured via the Short Form questionnaire-36 items) at 6, 12 and 18 months; and PHQ-9 at 6 and 18 months, all collected by assessors blinded to treatment allocation. Non-inferiority margin was 1.9 PHQ-9 points. We undertook intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. We explored cost-effectiveness by collecting direct treatment and other health- and social-care costs and calculating quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at 18 months. RESULTS: We recruited 440 participants (BA, n = 221; CBT, n = 219); 175 (79%) BA and 189 (86%) CBT participants provided ITT data and 135 (61%) BA and 151 (69%) CBT participants provided PP data. At 12 months we found that BA was non-inferior to CBT {ITT: CBT 8.4 PHQ-9 points [standard deviation (SD) 7.5 PHQ-9 points], BA 8.4 PHQ-9 points (SD 7.0 PHQ-9 points), mean difference 0.1 PHQ-9 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3 to 1.5 PHQ-9 points, p = 0.89; PP: CBT 7.9 PHQ-9 points (SD 7.3 PHQ-9 points), BA 7.8 PHQ-9 points (SD 6.5 PHQ-9 points), mean difference 0.0 PHQ-9 points, 95% CI -1.5 to 1.6 PHQ-9 points, p = 0.99}. We found no differences in secondary outcomes. We found a significant difference in mean intervention costs (BA, £975; CBT, £1235; p < 0.001), but no differences in non-intervention (hospital, community health, social care and medication costs) or total (non-intervention plus intervention) costs. Costs were lower and QALY outcomes better in the BA group, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -£6865. The probability of BA being cost-effective compared with CBT was almost 80% at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's preferred willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. There were no trial-related adverse events. LIMITATIONS: In this pragmatic trial many depressed participants in both groups were also taking antidepressant medication, although most had been doing so for a considerable time before entering the trial. Around one-third of participants chose not to complete a PP dose of treatment, a finding common in both psychotherapy trials and routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: We found that BA is as effective as CBT, more cost-effective and can be delivered by MHWs with no professional training in psychological therapies. FUTURE WORK: Settings and countries with a paucity of professionally qualified psychological therapists, might choose to investigate the delivery of effective psychological therapy for depression without the need to develop an extensive and costly professional infrastructure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost and Outcome of Behavioural Activation versus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression (COBRA): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common, debilitating, and costly disorder. Many patients request psychological therapy, but the best-evidenced therapy-cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-is complex and costly. A simpler therapy-behavioural activation (BA)-might be as effective and cheaper than is CBT. We aimed to establish the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for adults with depression. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults aged 18 years or older meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria for major depressive disorder from primary care and psychological therapy services in Devon, Durham, and Leeds (UK). We excluded people who were receiving psychological therapy, were alcohol or drug dependent, were acutely suicidal or had attempted suicide in the previous 2 months, or were cognitively impaired, or who had bipolar disorder or psychosis or psychotic symptoms. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) remotely using computer-generated allocation (minimisation used; stratified by depression severity [Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score of <19 vs ≥19], antidepressant use, and recruitment site) to BA from junior mental health workers or CBT from psychological therapists. Randomisation done at the Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit was concealed from investigators. Treatment was given open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome was depression symptoms according to the PHQ-9 at 12 months. We analysed all those who were randomly allocated and had complete data (modified intention to treat [mITT]) and also all those who were randomly allocated, had complete data, and received at least eight treatment sessions (per protocol [PP]). We analysed safety in the mITT population. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9 PHQ-9 points. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN27473954. FINDINGS: Between Sept 26, 2012, and April 3, 2014, we randomly allocated 221 (50%) participants to BA and 219 (50%) to CBT. 175 (79%) participants were assessable for the primary outcome in the mITT population in the BA group compared with 189 (86%) in the CBT group, whereas 135 (61%) were assessable in the PP population in the BA group compared with 151 (69%) in the CBT group. BA was non-inferior to CBT (mITT: CBT 8·4 PHQ-9 points [SD 7·5], BA 8·4 PHQ-9 points [7·0], mean difference 0·1 PHQ-9 points [95% CI -1·3 to 1·5], p=0·89; PP: CBT 7·9 PHQ-9 points [7·3]; BA 7·8 [6·5], mean difference 0·0 PHQ-9 points [-1·5 to 1·6], p=0·99). Two (1%) non-trial-related deaths (one [1%] multidrug toxicity in the BA group and one [1%] cancer in the CBT group) and 15 depression-related, but not treatment-related, serious adverse events (three in the BA group and 12 in the CBT group) occurred in three [2%] participants in the BA group (two [1%] patients who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed) and eight (4%) participants in the CBT group (seven [4%] who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed). INTERPRETATION: We found that BA, a simpler psychological treatment than CBT, can be delivered by junior mental health workers with less intensive and costly training, with no lesser effect than CBT. Effective psychological therapy for depression can be delivered without the need for costly and highly trained professionals. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behaviour therapy for depression (COBRA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. However, CBT is a complex therapy that requires highly trained and qualified practitioners, and its scalability is therefore limited by the costs of training and employing sufficient therapists to meet demand. Behavioural activation (BA) is a psychological treatment for depression that may be an effective alternative to CBT and, because it is simpler, might also be delivered by less highly trained and specialised mental health workers. METHODS/DESIGN: COBRA is a two-arm, non-inferiority, patient-level randomised controlled trial, including clinical, economic, and process evaluations comparing CBT delivered by highly trained professional therapists to BA delivered by junior professional or para-professional mental health workers to establish whether the clinical effectiveness of BA is non-inferior to CBT and if BA is cost effective compared to CBT. Four hundred and forty patients with major depressive disorder will be recruited through screening in primary care. We will analyse for non-inferiority in per-protocol and intention-to-treat populations. Our primary outcome will be severity of depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be clinically significant change and severity of depression at 18 months, and anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (Short-Form Health Survey-36) at 12 and 18 months. Our economic evaluation will take the United Kingdom National Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective to include costs of the interventions, health and social care services used, plus productivity losses. Cost-effectiveness will explored in terms of quality-adjusted life years using the EuroQol-5D measure of health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: The clinical and economic outcomes of this trial will provide the evidence to help policy makers, clinicians and guideline developers decide on the merits of including BA as a first-line treatment of depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954.