Background Depression is usually managed in primary care, but most antidepressant trials are of patients from secondary care mental health services, with eligibility criteria based on diagnosis and severity of depressive symptoms. Antidepressants are now used in a much wider group of people than in previous regulatory trials. We investigated the clinical effectiveness of sertraline in patients in primary care with depressive symptoms ranging from mild to severe and tested the role of severity and duration in treatment response. MethodsThe PANDA study was a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial of patients from 179 primary care surgeries in four UK cities (Bristol, Liverpool, London, and York). We included patients aged 18 to 74 years who had depressive symptoms of any severity or duration in the past 2 years, where there was clinical uncertainty about the benefit of an antidepressant. This strategy was designed to improve the generalisability of our sample to current use of antidepressants within primary care. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a remote computer-generated code to sertraline or placebo, and were stratified by severity, duration, and site with random block length. Patients received one capsule (sertraline 50 mg or placebo orally) daily for one week then two capsules daily for up to 11 weeks, consistent with evidence on optimal dosages for efficacy and acceptability. The primary outcome was depressive symptoms 6 weeks after randomisation, measured by Patient Health Questionnaire, 9-item version (PHQ-9) scores. Secondary outcomes at 2, 6 and 12 weeks were depressive symptoms and remission (PHQ-9 and Beck Depression Inventory-II), generalised anxiety symptoms (Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment 7-item version), mental and physical health-related quality of life (12-item Short-Form Health Survey), and self-reported improvement. All analyses compared groups as randomised (intention-to-treat). The study is registered with EudraCT, 2013-003440-22 (protocol number 13/0413; version 6.1) and ISRCTN, ISRCTN84544741, and is closed to new participants.

In this review article, we outline the evidence linking attachment adversity to psychosis, from the premorbid stages of the disorder to its clinical forms. To better understand the neurobiological mechanisms through which insecure attachment may contribute to psychosis, we identify at least five neurobiological pathways linking attachment to risk for developing psychosis. Besides its well documented influence on the hypothalamic-pituary-adrenal (HPA) axis, insecure attachment may also contribute to neurodevelopmental risk through the dopaminergic and oxytonergic systems, as well as bear influence on neuroinflammation and oxidative stress responses. We further consider the neuroscientific and behavioral studies that underpin mentalization as a suite of processes potentially moderating the risk to transition to psychotic disorders. In particular, mentalization may help the individual compensate for endophenotypical impairments in the integration of sensory and metacognitive information. We propose a model where embodied mentalization would lie at the core of a protective, resilience response mitigating the adverse and potentially pathological influence of the neurodevelopmental cascade of risk for psychosis.

Aim: Schizotypal trait expression and mentalizing impairments represent key factors associated with increased vulnerability for schizophrenia. In the current study, we analysed the nature of associations linking specific schizotypal personality features to mentalizing difficulties during adolescence. Furthermore, we examined the extent to which mentalizing difficulties mediate the relationship between schizotypal trait features and self-reported thought problems.Methods: One hundred and five community adolescents (M age = 15.72; SD = 1.91) completed a recently developed self-report measure of mentalizing (Reflective Functioning Questionnaire [RFQ]), evaluating the degree of certainty (RFQc-scale) and uncertainty (RFQu-scale) with which individuals utilize mental state information to understand their own and others' behaviour. High scores on the RFQu-scale reflect poor usage of mental state information, while high scores on the RFQc-scale capture adaptive levels of certainty about mental states. Self-report questionnaires were also used to assess schizotypal trait expression, thought problems and symptoms of anxiety/depression.Results: Linear regression models indicated that schizotypal features of social anxiety and odd speech accounted for increased RFQu scores, while odd speech also accounted for reduced RFQc scores. RFQu partially mediated the effects of social anxiety and odd speech on the level of thought problems in the sample.Conclusions: Present findings suggest that schizotypal features that impede interpersonal communication during adolescence are linked to difficulties in mental state understanding. Our study also provides original data suggesting that the effects of social anxiety and odd speech on psychosis-risk may partially depend upon the level of mentalizing uncertainty. Mentalizing difficulties may constitute important clinical assessment and early prevention treatment targets in adolescents who demonstrate schizotypal features.

Abstract:Developmental clinical research in recent years has highlighted the value treating psychotic disorders at the earliest stage to reduce long-term morbidity. It is now suggested that treatment during the clinical high risk states (CHR), preceding by 1 to 4 years the onset of psychotic disorders, may delay or prevent the onset of psychosis, and contribute to a more positive prognosis. In this article, we wish to provide a rationale and clinical illustration of mentalization-based treatment (MBT) as an indicated preventive treatment for CHR. We will first review the notion of high-risk for psychosis, providing a trans-theoretical developmental framework for conceptualizing the clinical progression from sub-clinical towards clinical psychotic states. Second, we address the commonalities and differences between the constructs of mentalization and metacognition, and discuss their relevance in preventive psychotherapeutic treatment for CHR. Thirdly, we provide a clinical illustration of MBT to emerging psychosis. Finally, we conclude by discussing the specific contributions of MBT approach in youths at CHR, and the necessary research for evaluating its relevance in the context of risk for developing psychosis.In the following, we consider mentalization-based treatment (MBT) as an indicated preventive treatment for individuals at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis. Mentalization (thinking about thinking; (Fonagy 1991)) is a concept used both clinically and empirically to characterize a set of social cognitive processes that convey an understanding of human behavior as motivated by intentional mental states. We will first briefly review the developmental clinical milestones of emerging psychosis. The second section will specifically discuss the relevance of processes such as mentalization or metacognition during the premorbid and CHR phases of emerging psychosis. The last section will offer a clinical case illustration of mentalization-based treatment conducted with an adolescent female at CHR for psychosis. We conclude by highlighting how mentalization-based treatment may protect at-risk individuals from converting to clinical psychotic states.

BackgroundDepressive symptoms are usually managed within primary care and antidepressant medication constitutes the first-line treatment. It remains unclear at present which people are more likely to benefit from antidepressant medication. This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PANDA) to investigate the severity and duration of depressive symptoms that are associated with a clinically significant response to sertraline compared to placebo, in people presenting to primary care with depression.Methods/designPANDA is a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial in which participants are individually randomised to sertraline or placebo. Eligible participants are those who are between the ages of 18 to 74; have presented to primary care with depression or low mood during the past 2 years; have not received antidepressant or anti-anxiety medication in the 8 weeks prior to enrolment in the trial and there is clinical equipoise about the benefits of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medication. Participants who consent to participate in the trial are randomised to receive either sertraline or matching placebo, starting at 50 mg daily for 1 week, increasing to 100 mg daily for up to 11 weeks (with the option of increasing to 150 mg if required). Participants, general practitioners (GPs) and the research team will be blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome will be depressive symptoms measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at 6 weeks post randomisation, measured as a continuous outcome. Secondary outcomes include depressive symptoms measured with the PHQ-9 at 2 and 12 weeks as a continuous outcome and at 2, 6 and 12 weeks as a binary outcome; follow-up scores on depressive symptoms measured with the Beck Depression Inventory-II, anxiety symptoms measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and quality of life measured with the Euroqol-5D-5L and Short Form-12; emotional processing task scores measured at baseline, 2 and 6 weeks; and costs associated with healthcare use, time off work and personal costs.DiscussionThe PANDA trial uses a simple self-administered measure to establish the severity and duration of depressive symptoms associated with a clinically significant response to sertraline. The evidence from the trial will inform primary care prescribing practice by identifying which patients are more likely to benefit from antidepressants.Trial registrationControlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN84544741. Registered on 20 March 2014. EudraCT Number: 2013-003440-22; Protocol Number: 13/0413 (version 6.1).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2253-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Externalizing behaviors (EBs) pertain to a diverse set of aggressive, antisocial, and potentially destructive behaviors directed toward the external environment. They range from nonclinical to clinical in severity, associated with opposition, aggression, hyperactivity, or impulsivity, and are considered a risk factor for the emergence of psychopathology later in adulthood. Focusing on community adolescents (N = 102; 49 female and 53 male adolescents; age range 12–19 years), this study aimed to explore the relations between EBs and the cortical thickness of regions of interest as well as to identify possible risk markers that could improve understanding of the EB construct. Using a mixed cross-sectional and prospective design (1-year follow-up), we report specific associations with cortical thickness of the left insular, right orbitofrontal, and left anterior cingulate cortex. Specifically, thinner left insular and right orbitofrontal cortex was associated with higher EBs, and thinner left anterior cingulate cortex predicted less reduction in EBs 1 year later. In addition, further examination of the aggression and rule-breaking subscales of the Youth/Adult Self-Report, used to assess EBs, revealed specific associations with insular subregions. Findings suggest that cortical structure morphology may significantly relate to the expression and maintenance of EBs within the general population of adolescents.

No abstract

Background Despite a growing number of prescriptions for antidepressants (over 70 million in 2018), there is uncertainty about when people with depression might benefit from antidepressant medication and concern that antidepressants are prescribed unnecessarily. Objectives The main objective of the PANDA (What are the indications for Prescribing ANtiDepressAnts that will lead to a clinical benefit?) research programme was to provide more guidance about when antidepressants are likely to benefit people with depression. We aimed to estimate the minimal clinically important difference for commonly used self-administered scales for depression and anxiety, and to understand more about how patients respond to such assessments. We carried out an observational study of patients with depressive symptoms and a placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial of sertraline versus placebo to estimate the treatment effect in UK primary care. The hypothesis was that the severity and duration of symptoms were related to treatment response. Design The programme consisted of three phases. The first phase relied on the secondary analysis of existing data extracted from published trials. The second phase was the PANDA cohort study of patients with depressive symptoms who presented to primary care and were followed up 2, 4 and 6 weeks after a baseline assessment. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the analysis. The third phase was a multicentre randomised placebo-controlled double-blind trial of sertraline versus placebo in patients presenting to primary care with depressive symptoms. Setting UK primary care in Bristol, London, Liverpool and York. Participants Patients aged 18–74 years who were experiencing depressive symptoms in primary care. Eligibility for the PANDA randomised controlled trial included that there was uncertainty about the benefits about treatment with an antidepressant. Interventions In the PANDA randomised controlled trial, patients were individually randomised to 100 mg daily of sertraline or an identical placebo. The PANDA cohort study was an observational study. Main outcome measures Depressive symptoms measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire were the primary outcome for the randomised controlled trial. Other outcomes included anxiety symptoms using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; depressive symptoms using the Beck Depression Inventory, version 2; health-related quality of life; self-reported improvement; and cost-effectiveness. Results The secondary analysis of existing randomised controlled trials [GENetic and clinical Predictors Of treatment response in Depression (GenPod), TREAting Depression with physical activity (TREAD) and Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive Behavioural Therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression in primary care (CoBalT)] found evidence that the minimal clinically important difference increased as the initial severity of depressive symptoms rose. Our estimates of minimal clinically important difference were a 17% and 18% reduction in Beck Depression Inventory scores for GenPod and TREAD, respectively. In CoBalT, a 32% reduction corresponded to the minimal clinically important difference but the participants in this study had depression that had not responded to antidepressants. In the PANDA study cohort, and from our analyses in existing data, we found that the minimal clinically important difference varies considerably with the initial severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Expressing the minimal clinically important difference as a percentage reduction reduces this variation at higher scores, but at low scores the percentage reduction increased substantially. The results from the qualitative studies pointed out many limitations of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items in assessing change and recovery from depression. In the PANDA randomised controlled trial, there was no evidence that sertraline resulted in a reduction in depressive symptoms within 6 weeks of randomisation, but there was some evidence of a reduction by 12 weeks. However, sertraline led to a reduction in anxiety symptoms, an improvement of mental health-related quality of life and an increased likelihood of reporting improvement. The mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 6 weeks was 7.98 (standard deviation 5.63) in the sertraline group and 8.76 (standard deviation 5.86) in the placebo group (5% relative reduction, 95% confidence interval –7% to 15%; p = 0.41). Of the secondary outcomes, there was strong evidence that sertraline reduced anxiety symptoms (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 score reduced by 17% (95% confidence interval 9% to 25%; p = 0.00005). Sertraline had a high probability (> 90%) of being cost-effective at 12 weeks. The PANDA randomised controlled trial found no evidence that treatment response or cost-effectiveness was related to severity or duration of depressive symptoms. The minimal clinically important difference estimates suggested that sertraline’s effect on anxiety, but not on depression, was likely to be clinically important. Limitations The results from the randomised controlled trial and the estimates of minimal clinically important difference were not sufficiently precise to provide specific clinical guidance for individuals. We had low power in testing whether or not initial severity and duration of depressive symptoms are related to treatment response. Conclusions The results of the trial support the use of sertraline and probably other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors because of their action in reducing anxiety symptoms and the likelihood of longer-term benefit on depressive symptoms. Sertraline could be prescribed for anxiety symptoms that commonly occur with depression and many patients will experience a clinical benefit. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items and similar self-administered scales should not be used on their own to assess clinical outcome, but should be supplemented with further clinical assessment. Future work We need to examine the longer-term effects of antidepressant treatment. We need more precise estimates of the treatment effects and minimal clinically important difference at different severities to provide more specific guidance for individuals. However, the methods we have developed provide an approach towards providing such detailed guidance. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84544741 and EudraCT number 2013-003440-22. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.