Search

Background: Depression is a common mental disorder with a high social burden and significant impact on suicidality and quality of life. Treatment is often limited to drug therapies because of long waiting times to see psychological therapists face to face, despite several guidelines recommending that psychological treatments should be first-line interventions for mild to moderate depression., Objective: We aimed to evaluate, among patients on a waitlist to receive secondary mental health care services for depression, how effective coach-guided web-based therapy (The Journal) is, compared with an information-only waitlist control group, in reducing depression symptoms after 12 weeks., Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial with 2 parallel arms and a process evaluation, which included interviews with study participants. Participants assigned to the intervention group received 12 weeks of web-based therapy guided by a coach who had a background in social work. Patients in the control group receive a leaflet of mental health resources they could access. The primary outcome measure was a change in depression scores, as measured by the Patient-Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)., Results: A total of 95 participants were enrolled (intervention, n=47; control, n=48). The mean change in PHQ-9 scores from baseline to week 12 was -3.6 (SD 6.6) in the intervention group and -3.1 (SD 6.2) in the control group, which was not a statistically significant difference with a two-sided alpha of .05 (t 91 =-0.37; P=.72, 95% CI -3.1 to 2.2). At 12 weeks, participants in the intervention group reported higher health-related quality of life (mean EuroQol 5 dimensions visual analogue scale [EQ-5D-VAS] score 66.8, SD 18.0) compared with the control group (mean EQ-5D VAS score 55.9, SD 19.2; t 84 =-2.73; P=.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in health service use following their initial consultation with a psychiatrist. The process evaluation showed that participants in the intervention group completed a mean of 5.0 (SD 2.3) lessons in The Journal and 8.8 (SD 3.1) sessions with the coach. Most participants (29/47, 62%) in the intervention group who completed the full dose of the intervention, by finishing 6 or more lessons in The Journal, were more likely to have a clinically important reduction in depressive symptoms at 12 weeks compared with the control group (Χ 2 1 =6.3; P=.01, Φ=0.37). Participants who completed the interviews reported that the role played by the coach was a major factor in adherence to the study intervention., Conclusions: The results demonstrate that the use of guided web-based therapy for the treatment of depression is not more effective than information-only waitlist control. However, it showed that the coach has the potential to increase adherence and engagement with web-based depression treatment protocols. Further research is needed on what makes the coach effective., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02423733; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02423733., (©Sarah MacLean, Daniel J. Corsi, Sadie Litchfield, Julia Kucharski, Kira Genise, Zeynep Selaman, Valerie Testa, Simon Hatcher. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 09.06.2020.)

Objective: To describe the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual or sexual minority youth who used a form of computerised therapy (Rainbow SPARX) for depression., Methods: 25 adolescents (20 with significant depressive symptoms) who had trialled Rainbow SPARX took part in semi-structured interviews. The general inductive approach was used to analyse interview data., Results: Feedback consisted of five main themes: 'appealing aspects'; 'applying it to real life'; 'things to improve'; 'aspects that did not appeal'; and 'other themes'. Young people suggested that there should be more sexuality-specific ('rainbow') content in the computer program. Seventeen participants thought computerised therapy helped them feel better or less depressed., Conclusions: Consumer perspectives are increasingly being sought and this user input is especially useful for improving services. Our study provides important in-depth feedback on Rainbow SPARX from the perspective of sexual minority youth, and it highlights that computerised therapies can be successfully modified for groups traditionally under-served by mainstream mental health interventions., (© The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 2015.)

Introduction: Depression may affect up to 10% of the population, with half of affected people having recurrence of their symptoms. In mild to moderate depression, there is no reliable evidence that any one treatment is superior in improving symptoms of depression, but the strength of evidence supporting different treatments varies. In severe depression, only prescription antidepressants and electroconvulsive therapy are known to improve symptoms., Methods and Outcomes: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in mild to moderate and severe depression, and in treatment-resistant depression? Which interventions reduce relapse rates? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)., Results: We found 88 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions., Conclusions: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antidepressant drugs (tricyclic antidepressants [including low-dose tricyclic antidepressants], selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, or venlafaxine), continuing prescription antidepressant drugs, electroconvulsive therapy, exercise, lithium augmentation, pindolol augmentation, and St John's wort.

Purpose: We wanted to assess the effectiveness of a home-based physical activity program, the Depression in Late Life Intervention Trial of Exercise (DeLLITE), in improving function, quality of life, and mood in older people with depressive symptoms., Methods: We undertook a randomized controlled trial involving 193 people aged 75 years and older with depressive symptoms at enrollment who were recruited from primary health care practices in Auckland, New Zealand. Participants received either an individualized physical activity program or social visits to control for the contact time of the activity intervention delivered over 6 months. Primary outcome measures were function, a short physical performance battery comprising balance and mobility, and the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale. Secondary outcome measures were quality of life, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form, mood, Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), physical activity, Auckland Heart Study Physical Activity Questionnaire, and self-report of falls. Repeated measures analyses tested the differential impact on outcomes over 12 months' follow-up., Results: The mean age of the participants was 81 years, and 59% were women. All participants scored in the at-risk category on the depression screen, 53% had a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision diagnosis of major depression or scored more than 4 on the GDS-15 at baseline, indicating moderate or severe depression. Almost all participants, 187 (97%), completed the trial. Overall there were no differences in the impact of the 2 interventions on outcomes. Mood and mental health related quality of life improved for both groups., Conclusion: The DeLLITE activity program improved mood and quality of life for older people with depressive symptoms as much as the effect of social visits. Future social and activity interventions should be tested against a true usual care control.

Introduction: Depression may affect up to 10% of the population, with symptoms recurring in half of affected people. In mild to moderate depression, there is no reliable evidence that any one treatment is superior in improving symptoms of depression, but the strength of evidence supporting different treatments varies., Methods and Outcomes: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of psychological treatments, and of interventions to reduce relapse rates, in mild to moderate or severe depression? What are the effects of psychological interventions to improve delivery of treatments in mild to moderate or severe depression? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to April 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)., Results: We found 55 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions., Conclusions: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: befriending, care pathways, cognitive therapy, combining antidepressant drugs and psychological treatments, interpersonal psychotherapy, non-directive counselling, problem-solving therapy, relapse prevention programme.

Background: Depression in the physically unwell is common and an important cause of morbidity. There are problems with diagnosing depression in the physically ill which may lead to under-recognition and under-treatment. In clinical practice antidepressants are available and a feasible option for treating depressive disorders. Therefore we thought it would be a reasonable first step in addressing this problem to describe the literature of randomised controlled trials in this area., Objectives: To determine whether antidepressants are clinically effective and acceptable for the treatment of depression in people who also have a physical illness., Search Strategy: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library Trials Register and Cochrane Depression and Neurosis Group Trials Register were all systematically searched, supplemented by hand searches of two journals and reference searching., Selection Criteria: All relevant randomised trials comparing any antidepressant drug (as defined in the British National Formulary) with placebo or no treatment, in patients of either sex over 16, who have been diagnosed as depressed by any criterion, and have a specified physical disorder (for example cancer, myocardial infarction). "Functional" disorders where there is no generally agreed physical pathology (e.g. irritable bowel syndrome) were excluded. The main outcome measures are numbers of individuals who recover/improve at the end of the trial and, as a proxy for treatment acceptability, numbers who complete treatment., Data Collection and Analysis: Data was extracted independently by the reviewers onto data collection forms and differences settled by discussion., Main Results: 18 studies were included, covering 838 patients with a range of physical diseases (cancer 2, diabetes 1, head injury 1, heart 1, HIV 5, lung 1, multiple sclerosis 1, renal 1, stroke 3, mixed 2). Depression was diagnosed clinically in 3 studies, otherwise by structured interview or checklist. Only 5 studies described how they performed randomisation. 1 study compared drug with no treatment, and the rest with placebo: all of the latter said they were double blind.6 studies used SSRIs, 3 atypical antidepressants, and the remainder tricyclics.Patients treated with antidepressants were significantly more likely to improve than those given placebo (13 studies, OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27-0.51) or no treatment (1 study, OR 3.45, 95% CI 11.1-1.10). About 4 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one recovery from depression which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNT 4.2, 95% CI 3.2-6.4). Most antidepressants (tricyclics and SSRIs together, 15 trials ) produced a small but significant increase in dropout (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.14-2.40. NNH 9.8, 95% CI 5.4-42.9). The "atypical" antidepressant mianserin produced significantly less dropout than placebo. Only 2 studies used numerical scales designed to measure effects on function and quality of life; in HIV (Karnofsky scale), drug was better than no treatment; in lung disease (Sickness Impact Profile), drug was not significantly different from placebo. Only 7 studies reported looking for changes in the physical disease. Antidepressants produced no change in immune function in HIV relative to placebo (2 studies) or no treatment (1 study). Relative to placebo, antidepressants produced no change in cardiovascular function in heart disease, in respiratory function in lung disease, or in vital signs or laboratory tests in cancer (1 study each). Nortriptyline produced worse control in diabetes. Trends towards tricyclics being more effective than SSRIs, but also more likely to produce dropout were noted, but these are based on non-randomised comparisons between trials., Authors' Conclusions: The review provides evidence that antidepressants, significantly more frequently than either placebo or no treatment, cause improvement in depression in patients with a wide range of physical diseases. About 4 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one recovery from depression which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNT 4.2, 95% CI 3.2-6.4). Antidepressants seem reasonably acceptable to patients, in that about 10 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one dropout from treatment which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNH 9.8, 95% CI 5.4-42.9).The evidence is consistent across the trials, apart from 2 trials in cancer, where the "atypical" antidepressant mianserin produced significantly less dropout than placebo. Trends towards tricyclics being more effective than SSRIs, but also more likely to produce dropout were noted, but these are based on non-randomised comparisons between trials. Problems with the evidence include most of the trials' use of observers, rather than patients, to decide on improvement, and concentration mainly on symptoms rather than function and quality of life. There is also a possibility of undetected negative trials.Nevertheless, the review provides evidence that use of antidepressants should at least be considered in those with both physical illness and depression. Regarding diagnosis, the existence of a cheap and readily available treatment for depression should encourage detailed assessment of persistent low mood in the physically ill.

Introduction: Depression may affect up to 10% of the population, with half of affected people having recurrence of their symptoms. In mild to moderate depression, there is no reliable evidence that any one treatment is superior in improving symptoms of depression, but the strength of evidence supporting different treatments varies. In severe depression, only prescription antidepressants and electroconvulsive therapy are known to improve symptoms., Methods and Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in mild to moderate and severe depression, and in treatment-resistant depression? Which interventions reduce relapse rates? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to April 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)., Results: We found 87 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions., Conclusions: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antidepressant drugs (tricyclic antidepressants [including low-dose tricyclic antidepressants], selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, reboxetine, or venlafaxine), continuing prescription antidepressant drugs, electroconvulsive therapy, exercise, lithium augmentation, pindolol augmentation, St John's Wort.

Research into what works in depression is in trouble. All treatments appear equally effective and what happens in research trials does not seem to translate into clinical practice or, to put it another way, clinical practice is not reflected in randomized controlled trials. We run the risk of designing cosmetic trials with no real relationship to clinical services that only serve to demonstrate that new treatments are effective in artificial settings. This article outlines possible reasons for this, which include how depression is diagnosed, how people are recruited into trials, the design of trials and how outcomes are assessed. The solutions to these problems involve changing how patients are recruited, considering other trial designs and using different outcome measures.

Objectives: To determine whether antidepressants are clinically effective and acceptable for the treatment of depression in people who also have a physical illness., Search Strategy: Medline, Cochrane Library Trials Register and Cochrane Depression and Neurosis Group Trials Register were all systematically searched, supplemented by hand searches of two journals and reference searching., Selection Criteria: All relevant randomised trials comparing any antidepressant drug (as defined in the British National Formulary) with placebo or no treatment, in patients of either sex over 16, who have been diagnosed as depressed by any criterion, and have a specified physical disorder (for example cancer, myocardial infarction). "Functional" disorders where there is no generally agreed physical pathology (e.g. irritable bowel syndrome) were excluded. The main outcome measures are numbers of individuals who recover/improve at the end of the trial and, as a proxy for treatment acceptability, numbers who complete treatment., Data Collection and Analysis: Data was extracted independently by the reviewers onto data collection forms and differences settled by discussion., Main Results: 18 studies were included, covering 838 patients with a range of physical diseases (cancer 2, diabetes 1, head injury 1, heart 1, HIV 5, lung 1, multiple sclerosis 1, renal 1, stroke 3, mixed 2). Depression was diagnosed clinically in 3 studies, otherwise by structured interview or checklist. Only 5 studies described how they performed randomisation. 1 study compared drug with no treatment, and the rest with placebo: all of the latter said they were double blind. 6 studies used SSRIs, 3 atypical antidepressants, and the remainder tricyclics. Patients treated with antidepressants were significantly more likely to improve than those given placebo (13 studies, OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27-0.51) or no treatment (1 study, OR 3.45, 95% CI 11.1-1.10). About 4 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one recovery from depression which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNT 4.2, 95% CI 3.2-6.4). Most antidepressants (tricyclics and SSRIs together, 15 trials ) produced a small but significant increase in dropout (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.14-2.40. NNH 9.8, 95% CI 5.4-42.9). The "atypical" antidepressant mianserinproduced significantly less dropout than placebo. Only 2 studies used numerical scales designed to measure effects on function and quality of life; in HIV (Karnofsky scale), drug was better than no treatment; in lung disease (Sickness Impact Profile), drug was not significantly different from placebo. Only 7 studies reported looking for changes in the physical disease. Antidepressants produced no change in immune function in HIV relative to placebo (2 studies) or no treatment (1 study). Relative to placebo, antidepressants produced no change in cardiovascular function in heart disease, in respiratory function in lung disease, or in vital signs or laboratory tests in cancer (1 study each). Nortriptyline produced worse control in diabetes. Trends towards tricyclics being more effective than SSRIs, but also more likely to produce dropout were noted, but these are based on non-randomised comparisons between trials., Reviewer's Conclusions: The review provides evidence that antidepressants, significantly more frequently than either placebo or no treament, cause improvement in depression in patients with a wide range of physical diseases. About 4 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one recovery from depression which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNT 4.2, 95% CI 3.2-6.4). Antidepressants seem reasonably acceptable to patients, in that about 10 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one dropout from treatment which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNH 9.8, 95% CI 5.4-42.9). The evidence is consistent across the trials, apart from 2 trials in cancer, where the "atypical" antidepressant mianserin produced significantly less dropout than placebo. Trends towards tricyclics being more effective than SSRIs, but also more likely to produce dropout were noted, but these are based on non-randomised comparisons between trials. Problems with the evidence include most of the trials' use of observers, rather than patients, to decide on improvement, and concentration mainly on symptoms rather than function and quality of life. There is also a possibility of undetected negative trials. Nevertheless, the review provides evidence that use of antidepressants should at least be considered in those with both physical illness and depression. Regarding diagnosis, the existence of a cheap and readily available treatment for depression should encourage detailed assessment of persistent low mood in the physically ill.

Objectives: To determine whether antidepressants are clinically effective and acceptable for the treatment of depression in people who also have a physical illness., Search Strategy: Medline, Cochrane Library Trials Register and Cochrane Depression and Neurosis Group Trials Register were all systematically searched, supplemented by hand searches of two journals and reference searching., Selection Criteria: All relevant randomised trials comparing any antidepressant drug (as defined in the British National Formulary) with placebo or no treatment, in patients of either sex over 16, who have been diagnosed as depressed by any criterion, and have a specified physical disorder (for example cancer, myocardial infarction). "Functional" disorders where there is no generally agreed physical pathology (e.g. irritable bowel syndrome) were excluded. The main outcome measures are numbers of individuals who recover/improve at the end of the trial and, as a proxy for treatment acceptability, numbers who complete treatment., Data Collection and Analysis: Data was extracted independently by the reviewers onto data collection forms and differences settled by discussion., Main Results: 18 studies were included, covering 838 patients with a range of physical diseases (cancer 2, diabetes 1, head injury 1, heart 1, HIV 5, lung 1, multiple sclerosis 1, renal 1, stroke 3, mixed 2). Depression was diagnosed clinically in 3 studies, otherwise by structured interview or checklist. Only 5 studies described how they performed randomisation. 1 study compared drug with no treatment, and the rest with placebo: all of the latter said they were double blind. 6 studies used SSRIs, 3 atypical antidepressants, and the remainder tricyclics. Patients treated with antidepressants were significantly more likely to improve than those given placebo (13 studies, OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27-0.51) or no treatment (1 study, OR 3.45, 95% CI 11.1-1.10). About 4 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one recovery from depression which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNT 4.2, 95% CI 3.2-6.4). Most antidepressants (tricyclics and SSRIs together, 15 trials ) produced a small but significant increase in dropout (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.14-2.40. NNH 9.8, 95% CI 5.4-42.9). The "atypical" antidepressant mianserinproduced significantly less dropout than placebo. Only 2 studies used numerical scales designed to measure effects on function and quality of life; in HIV (Karnofsky scale), drug was better than no treatment; in lung disease (Sickness Impact Profile), drug was not significantly different from placebo. Only 7 studies reported looking for changes in the physical disease. Antidepressants produced no change in immune function in HIV relative to placebo (2 studies) or no treatment (1 study). Relative to placebo, antidepressants produced no change in cardiovascular function in heart disease, in respiratory function in lung disease, or in vital signs or laboratory tests in cancer (1 study each). Nortriptyline produced worse control in diabetes. Trends towards tricyclics being more effective than SSRIs, but also more likely to produce dropout were noted, but these are based on non-randomised comparisons between trials., Reviewer's Conclusions: The review provides evidence that antidepressants, significantly more frequently than either placebo or no treatment, cause improvement in depression in patients with a wide range of physical diseases. About 4 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one recovery from depression which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNT 4.2, 95% CI 3.2-6.4). Antidepressants seem reasonably acceptable to patients, in that about 10 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one dropout from treatment which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNH 9.8, 95% CI 5.4-42.9). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

To determine whether antidepressants are clinically effective and acceptable for the treatment of depression in people who also have a physical illness. The method used was a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials (found by computer and hand searches) comparing any antidepressant drug with placebo or no treatment, in depressed adults with a specified physical disorder. The main outcome measures are numbers of individuals who recover/improve at the end of the trial and, as a proxy for treatment acceptability, numbers who complete treatment. 18 studies were included, covering 838 patients with a range of physical diseases. 6 studies used SSRIs, 3 atypical antidepressants, and the remainder tricyclics. Patients treated with antidepressants were significantly more likely to improve than those given placebo: about 4 patients would need to be treated with antidepressants to produce one recovery from depression which would not have occurred had they been given placebo (NNT 4.2, 95% CI 3.2-6.4). Most antidepressants (tricyclics and SSRIs together, 15 trials) produced a small but significant increase in dropout (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.14-2.40. NNH 9.8, 95% CI 5.4-42.9). The "atypical" antidepressant mianserin produced significantly less dropout than placebo. Trends towards tricyclics being more effective than SSRIs, but also more likely to produce dropout were noted. The review provides evidence that antidepressants, significantly more frequently than either placebo or no treatment, cause improvement in depression in patients with a wide range of physical diseases.