BackgroundNon-response to antidepressant medication is common in primary care. Little is known about how GPs manage patients with depression that does not respond to medication.AimTo describe usual care for primary care patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).Design and settingMixed-methods study using data from a UK primary care multicentre randomised controlled trial.MethodIn total, 235 patients with TRD randomised to continue with usual GP care were followed up at 3-month intervals for a year. Self-report data were collected on antidepressant medication, number of GP visits, and other treatments received. In addition, 14 semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with a purposive sample after the 6-month follow-up and analysed thematically.ResultsMost patients continued on the same dose of a single antidepressant between baseline and 3 months (n = 147/186 at 3 months, 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 73 to 85%)). Figures were similar for later follow-ups (for example, 9–12 months: 72% (95% CI = 63 to 79%). Medication changes (increasing dose; switching to a different antidepressant; adding a second antidepressant) were uncommon. Participants described usual care mainly as taking antidepressants, with consultations focused on other (physical) health concerns. Few accessed other treatments or were referred to secondary care.ConclusionUsual care in patients with TRD mainly entailed taking antidepressants, and medication changes were uncommon. The high prevalence of physical and psychological comorbidity means that, when these patients consult, their depression may not be discussed. Strategies are needed to ensure the active management of this large group of patients whose depression does not respond to antidepressant medication.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depressed adults. CBT interventions are complex, as they include multiple content components and can be delivered in different ways. We compared the effectiveness of different types of therapy, different components and combinations of components and aspects of delivery used in CBT interventions for adult depression. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials in adults with a primary diagnosis of depression, which included a CBT intervention. Outcomes were pooled using a component-level network meta-analysis. Our primary analysis classified interventions according to the type of therapy and delivery mode. We also fitted more advanced models to examine the effectiveness of each content component or combination of components. We included 91 studies and found strong evidence that CBT interventions yielded a larger short-term decrease in depression scores compared to treatment-as-usual, with a standardised difference in mean change of −1.11 (95% credible interval −1.62 to −0.60) for face-to-face CBT, −1.06 (−2.05 to −0.08) for hybrid CBT, and −0.59 (−1.20 to 0.02) for multimedia CBT, whereas wait list control showed a detrimental effect of 0.72 (0.09 to 1.35). We found no evidence of specific effects of any content components or combinations of components. Technology is increasingly used in the context of CBT interventions for depression. Multimedia and hybrid CBT might be as effective as face-to-face CBT, although results need to be interpreted cautiously. The effectiveness of specific combinations of content components and delivery formats remain unclear. Wait list controls should be avoided if possible.

Pulmonary rehabilitation is considered a key management strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its effectiveness is undermined by poor patient uptake and completion. The aim of this review was to identify, select and synthesise the available evidence on interventions for improving uptake and completion of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD.Electronic databases and trial registers were searched for randomised trials evaluating the effect of an intervention compared with a concurrent control group on patient uptake and completion. The primary outcomes were the number of participants who attended a baseline assessment and at least one session of pulmonary rehabilitation (uptake), and the number of participants who received a discharge assessment (completion).Only one quasi-randomised study (n=115) (of 2468 records identified) met the review inclusion criteria and was assessed as having a high risk of bias. The point estimate of effect did, however, indicate greater programme completion and attendance rates in participants allocated to pulmonary rehabilitation plus a tablet computer (enabled with support for exercise training) compared with controls (pulmonary rehabilitation only).There is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice on interventions for improving patient uptake and completion of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD. Despite increasing awareness of patient barriers to pulmonary rehabilitation, our review highlights the existing under-appreciation of interventional trials in this area. This knowledge gap should be viewed as an area of research priority due to its likely impact in undermining wider implementation of pulmonary rehabilitation and restricting patient access to a treatment considered the cornerstone of COPD.

ObjectiveTo determine the most effective interventions in recently detoxified, alcohol dependent patients for implementation in primary care.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing two or more interventions that could be used in primary care. The population was patients with alcohol dependency diagnosed by standardised clinical tools and who became detoxified within four weeks.Data extractionOutcomes of interest were continuous abstinence from alcohol (effectiveness) and all cause dropouts (as a proxy for acceptability) at least 12 weeks after start of intervention.Results64 trials (43 interventions) were included. The median probability of abstinence across placebo arms was 25%. Compared with placebo, the only intervention associated with increased probability of abstinence and moderate certainty evidence was acamprosate (odds ratio 1.86, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 2.33, corresponding to an absolute probability of 38%). Of the 62 included trials that reported all cause dropouts, interventions associated with a reduced number of dropouts compared with placebo (probability 50%) and moderate certainty of evidence were acamprosate (0.73, 0.62 to 0.86; 42%), naltrexone (0.70, 0.50 to 0.98; 41%), and acamprosate-naltrexone (0.30, 0.13 to 0.67; 17%). Acamprosate was the only intervention associated with moderate confidence in the evidence of effectiveness and acceptability up to 12 months. It is uncertain whether other interventions can help maintain abstinence and reduce dropouts because of low confidence in the evidence.ConclusionsEvidence is lacking for benefit from interventions that could be implemented in primary care settings for alcohol abstinence, other than for acamprosate. More evidence from high quality randomised controlled trials is needed, as are strategies using combined interventions (combinations of drug interventions or drug and psychosocial interventions) to improve treatment of alcohol dependency in primary care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016049779.

No abstract