Search

Objective: Studies have shown that antidepressants are no better than placebo in treating depression in dementia. The authors examined antidepressant efficacy in subgroups of depression in dementia with different depressive symptom profiles., Methods: This study focuses on exploratory secondary analyses on the randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled Health Technology Assessment Study of the Use of Antidepressants for Depression in Dementia (HTA-SADD) trial. The setting included old-age psychiatry services in nine centers in England. The participants included 326 patients meeting National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association probable/possible Alzheimer disease criteria, and Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) scores of 8 or more. Intervention was placebo (n = 111), sertraline (n = 107), or mirtazapine (n = 108). Latent class analyses (LCA) on baseline CSDD items clustered participants into symptom-based subgroups. Mixed-model analysis evaluated CSDD improvement at 13 and 39 weeks by randomization in each subgroup., Results: LCA yielded 4 subgroups: severe (n = 34), psychological (n = 86), affective (n = 129), and somatic (n = 77). Mirtazapine, but not sertraline, outperformed placebo in the psychological subgroup at week 13 (adjusted estimate: -2.77 [standard error (SE) 1.16; 95% confidence interval: -5.09 to -0.46]), which remained, but lost statistical significance at week 39 (adjusted estimate: -2.97 [SE 1.59; 95% confidence interval: -6.15 to 0.20]). Neither sertraline nor mirtazapine outperformed placebo in the other subgroups., Conclusion: Because of the exploratory nature of the analyses and the small sample sizes for subgroup analysis there is the need for caution in interpreting these data. Replication of the potential effects of mirtazapine in the subgroup of those with depression in dementia with "psychological" symptoms would be valuable. These data should not change clinical practice, but future trials should consider stratifying types of depression in dementia in secondary analyses., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Opioid use disorder is a chronic, debilitating, and costly disorder that has increased in prevalence in many countries, with an associated sharp rise in mortality. Maintenance opioid agonist therapy is the first-line treatment, but many patients do not stop using illicit or non-prescribed drugs concomitantly. We aimed to test the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a personalised psychosocial intervention implemented with a toolkit of behaviour-change techniques as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy., Methods: We did a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial at a specialist UK National Health Service community addictions clinic in London, UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, met criteria for opioid or cocaine dependence, or both, in the past 12 months, and voluntarily sought continued oral maintenance opioid agonist therapy, which they had been prescribed for at least 6 weeks. All participants were treatment resistant (ie, had used illicit or non-prescribed opioids or cocaine on one or more days in the past 28 days at study screening, which was verified by positive urine drug screen). Participants were allocated (1:1) by a web-accessed randomisation sequence (stratified by opioid agonist medication, current cocaine use, and current rug use) to receive a personalised psychosocial intervention (comprising a flexible toolkit of psychological-change methods, including contingency management to reinforce abstinence, recovery activities, and clinic attendance) in addition to treatment as usual, or treatment as usual only (control group). The primary outcome was treatment response at 18 weeks, which was defined as abstinence from illicit and non-prescribed opioids and cocaine in the past 28 days, as measured with treatment outcomes profiles and urine drug screening. Taking a societal cost perspective, we did an evaluation of cost-effectiveness with a wide range of willingness-to-pay values for a unit improvement in the probability of treatment response. We also calculated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Efficacy was analysed in a modified-intention-to-treat population, including all participants who were randomly allocated but excluding those who had previously completed the intervention. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN69313751. The trial is completed., Findings: Between June 7, 2013, and Dec 21, 2015, we randomly allocated 136 participants to the psychosocial intervention group and 137 to the control group. The trial database was locked on April 19, 2017. Three patients (one in the psychosocial intervention group and two in the control group) who were re-randomised in error were excluded from the analysis. 22 (16%) of 135 patients in the psychosocial intervention group had a treatment response, compared with nine (7%) of 135 in the control group (adjusted log odds 1·20 [95% CI 0·01-2·37]; p=0·048). The psychosocial intervention had a higher probability of being cost-effective than treatment as usual. There was a probability range of 47-87% for willingness-to-pay thresholds of £0-1000 for a unit improvement in the probability of treatment response. QALYs were higher in the psychosocial intervention group than in the control group (mean difference 0·048 [95% CI 0·016-0·080]; p=0·004) in adjusted analyses, with 60% and 67% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per QALY, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between groups, and no severe adverse events in either group were judged to be treatment related. One participant in the control group was hospitalised with drug-injection-related sepsis and died., Interpretation: In maintenance opioid agonist therapy, an adjunctive personalised psychosocial intervention in addition to standard therapy was efficacious and cost-effective compared with standard therapy alone at helping treatment-resistant patients abstain from using illicit and non-prescribed opioids and cocaine., Funding: Indivior., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and relapsing psychiatric disorder; opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is the front-line, evidence-supported treatment. A substantial number of patients relapse or continue to use heroin or other illicit drugs during OAT. There is considerable heterogeneity in the OAT-resistant sub-population, with many behavioural moderators of treatment response. We have developed a personalised psychosocial intervention (PSI) targeting these individuals. A formulation-guided assessment is linked to a toolkit of motivational, cognitive/behavioural and social support techniques. Change methods have been adapted from evidence-supported psychological therapies and are idiosyncratically tailored to the need and response., Methods: In this single-centre, 18-week, parallel group, pragmatic randomised clinical trial, we will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PSI as an adjunctive intervention during OAT, in comparison to opioid agonist treatment-as-usual. We plan to recruit 368 adults. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of participants categorised as 'responders' at the end of the intervention (defined as self-reported abstinence from heroin and cocaine with no positive biological drug tests during the 28days prior to the endpoint). Secondary outcomes include: percentage of days abstinent from heroin and cocaine in the 28days before follow-up; treatment retention; therapy compliance; health and social functioning; exploratory genetic biomarkers; and analyses of treatment moderation and mediation., Conclusions: This pragmatic controlled trial determines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised PSI for non-responding patients during OAT. Our intervention applies motivational, cognitive/behavioural and social support techniques adapted from evidence-based therapies. Findings will inform stratified delivery of OAT., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Poor adherence to treatment diminishes its individual and public health benefit. Financial incentives, provided on the condition of treatment attendance, could address this problem. Injecting drug users are a high-risk group for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and transmission, but adherence to vaccination programmes is poor. We aimed to assess whether contingency management delivered in routine clinical practice increased the completion of HBV vaccination in individuals receiving opioid substitution therapy., Methods: In our cluster randomised controlled trial, we enrolled participants at 12 National Health Service drug treatment services in the UK that provided opioid substitution therapy and nurse-led HBV vaccination with a super-accelerated schedule (vaccination days 0, 7, and 21). Clusters were randomly allocated 1:1:1 to provide vaccination without incentive (treatment as usual), with fixed value contingency management (three £10 vouchers), or escalating value contingency management (£5, £10, and £15 vouchers). Both contingency management schedules rewarded on-time attendance at appointments. The primary outcome was completion of clinically appropriate HBV vaccination within 28 days. We also did sensitivity analyses that examined vaccination completion with full adherence to appointment times and within a 3 month window. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72794493., Findings: Between March 16, 2011, and April 26, 2012, we enrolled 210 eligible participants. Compared with six (9%) of 67 participants treated as usual, 35 (45%) of 78 participants in the fixed value contingency management group met the primary outcome measure (odds ratio 12·1, 95% CI 3·7-39·9; p<0·0001), as did 32 (49%) of 65 participants in the escalating value contingency management group (14·0, 4·2-46·2; p<0·0001). These differences remained significant with sensitivity analyses., Interpretation: Modest financial incentives delivered in routine clinical practice significantly improve adherence to, and completion of, HBV vaccination programmes in patients receiving opioid substitution therapy. Achievement of this improvement in routine clinical practice should now prompt actual implementation. Drug treatment providers should employ contingency management to promote adherence to vaccination programmes. The effectiveness of routine use of contingency management to achieve long-term behaviour change remains unknown., Funding: National Institute for Health Research (RP-PG-0707-10149)., (Copyright © 2014 Weaver et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Depression is common in dementia but the evidence base for appropriate drug treatment is sparse and equivocal. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of two of the most commonly prescribed drugs, sertraline and mirtazapine, compared with placebo., Methods: We undertook the parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Health Technology Assessment Study of the Use of Antidepressants for Depression in Dementia (HTA-SADD) trial in participants from old-age psychiatry services in nine centres in England. Participants were eligible if they had probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, depression (lasting ≥4 weeks), and a Cornell scale for depression in dementia (CSDD) score of 8 or more. Participants were ineligible if they were clinically critical (eg, suicide risk), contraindicated to study drugs, on antidepressants, in another trial, or had no carer. The clinical trials unit at King's College London (UK) randomly allocated participants with a computer-generated block randomisation sequence, stratified by centre, with varying block sizes, in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive sertraline (target dose 150 mg per day), mirtazapine (45 mg), or placebo (control group), all with standard care. The primary outcome was reduction in depression (CSDD score) at 13 weeks (outcomes to 39 weeks were also assessed), assessed with a mixed linear-regression model adjusted for baseline CSDD, time, and treatment centre. This study is registered, number ISRCTN88882979 and EudraCT 2006-000105-38., Findings: Decreases in depression scores at 13 weeks did not differ between 111 controls and 107 participants allocated to receive sertraline (mean difference 1·17, 95% CI -0·23 to 2·58; p=0·10) or mirtazapine (0·01, -1·37 to 1·38; p=0·99), or between participants in the mirtazapine and sertraline groups (1·16, -0·25 to 2·57; p=0·11); these findings persisted to 39 weeks. Fewer controls had adverse reactions (29 of 111 [26%]) than did participants in the sertraline group (46 of 107, 43%; p=0·010) or mirtazapine group (44 of 108, 41%; p=0·031), and fewer serious adverse events rated as severe (p=0·003). Five patients in every group died by week 39., Interpretation: Because of the absence of benefit compared with placebo and increased risk of adverse events, the present practice of use of these antidepressants, with usual care, for first-line treatment of depression in Alzheimer's disease should be reconsidered., Funding: UK National Institute of Health Research HTA Programme., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Chronic epilepsy, as a consequence of status epilepticus, has been studied in animal models in order to analyze the cellular mechanisms responsible for the subsequent occurrence of spontaneous seizures. Status epilepticus, induced by either kainic acid or pilocarpine or by prolonged electrical stimulation, causes a characteristic pattern of neuronal death in the hippocampus; which is followed--after an apparent latent period--by the development of chronic, recurrent, spontaneous seizures. The question most relevant to this conference is the degree to which the subsequent chronic seizures contribute further to epileptogenesis and brain damage. This article addresses the temporal and anatomical parameters that must be understood in order to address this question. (1) How does one evaluate experimentally whether the chronic epileptic seizures that follow status epilepticus contribute to epileptogenesis and lead to brain damage? To answer this question, we must first know the time course of the development of the chronic epileptic seizures, and whether the interval between subsequent individual chronic seizures is a relevant factor. (2) What anatomical parameters are most relevant to the progression of epilepsy? For instance, how does loss of inhibitory interneurons potentially influence seizure generation and the progressive development of epileptogenesis? Does axon sprouting and formation of new synaptic connections represent a form of seizure-induced brain damage? These specific issues bear directly on the general question of whether seizures damage the brain during the chronic epilepsy that follows status epilepticus.