[266 words]Background: Only one-third of patients with depression respond fully to antidepressant medication

Studies examining the validity of the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ; Angold, Costello, & Messer, 1995) have largely focused on selected or clinical samples in childhood (6-11 years) or early to midadolescence (12-16 years) and have not investigated misclassifications or how the SMFQ relates to adult depression measures. Using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (2012), we assessed the validity of the SMFQ in relation to an adult depression measure administered in late adolescence (age 17-18 years). We also investigated sociodemographic and clinical variables previously shown to affect misclassification on short self-administered questionnaires compared with more detailed assessments of depression. We assessed construct validity using factor and item response theory analysis. To investigate content validity, we tabulated SMFQ items against the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10; World Health Organization, 1992) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) depressive symptoms. Criterion validity was examined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Potential misclassifications were investigated using logistic regression and multiple-indicator multiple-cause modeling. Factor analysis produced high loadings, low residual variances, and appropriate model fit indices. Seven of the 10 ICD-10 depressive symptoms were covered by at least 1 SMFQ item. The discriminatory ability of the SMFQ for meeting ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for depression was very high (area under ROC curve = 0.90). Individuals with anxiety symptoms, females, and less well-educated individuals overreported depressive symptoms on the SMFQ in relation to ICD-10 depression. We conclude the SMFQ is a valid instrument capturing a latent trait of depression in a community-based sample in late adolescence. Further work should be carried out to increase understanding of variables associated with misclassification.

Missing outcome data are a common threat to the validity of the results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which, if not analysed appropriately, can lead to misleading treatment effect estimates. Studies with missing outcome data also threaten the validity of any meta‐analysis that includes them. A conceptually simple Bayesian framework is proposed, to account for uncertainty due to missing binary outcome data in meta‐analysis. A pattern‐mixture model is fitted, which allows the incorporation of prior information on a parameter describing the missingness mechanism. We describe several alternative parameterisations, with the simplest being a prior on the probability of an event in the missing individuals. We describe a series of structural assumptions that can be made concerning the missingness parameters. We use some artificial data scenarios to demonstrate the ability of the model to produce a bias‐adjusted estimate of treatment effect that accounts for uncertainty. A meta‐analysis of haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia is used to illustrate the model. We end with a discussion of elicitation of priors, issues with poor reporting and potential extensions of the framework. Our framework allows one to make the best use of evidence produced from RCTs with missing outcome data in a meta‐analysis, accounts for any uncertainty induced by missing data and fits easily into a wider evidence synthesis framework for medical decision making. © 2015 The Authors. Statistics in MedicinePublished by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

ObjectivesTo see if a group course delivered by rheumatology teams using cognitive-behavioural approaches, plus usual care, reduced RA fatigue impact more than usual care alone.MethodsMulticentre, 2-year randomised controlled trial in RA adults (fatigue severity>6/10, no recent major medication changes). RAFT (Reducing Arthritis Fatigue: clinical Teams using CB approaches) comprises seven sessions, codelivered by pairs of trained rheumatology occupational therapists/nurses. Usual care was Arthritis Research UK fatigue booklet. Primary 26-week outcome fatigue impact (Bristol RA Fatigue Effect Numerical Rating Scale, BRAF-NRS 0–10). Intention-to-treat regression analysis adjusted for baseline scores and centre.Results308/333 randomised patients completed 26 week data (156/175 RAFT, 152/158 Control). Mean baseline variables were similar. At 26 weeks, the adjusted difference between arms for fatigue impact change favoured RAFT (BRAF-NRS Effect −0.59, 95% CI –1.11 to -0.06), BRAF Multidimensional Questionnaire (MDQ) Total −3.42 (95% CI –6.44 to -0.39), Living with Fatigue −1.19 (95% CI –2.17 to -0.21), Emotional Fatigue −0.91 (95% CI –1.58 to -0.23); RA Self-Efficacy (RASE, +3.05, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.66) (14 secondary outcomes unchanged). Effects persisted at 2 years: BRAF-NRS Effect −0.49 (95% CI −0.83 to -0.14), BRAF MDQ Total −2.98 (95% CI −5.39 to -0.57), Living with Fatigue −0.93 (95% CI −1.75 to -0.10), Emotional Fatigue −0.90 (95% CI −1.44, to -0.37); BRAF-NRS Coping +0.42 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.77) (relevance of fatigue impact improvement uncertain). RAFT satisfaction: 89% scored > 8/10 vs 54% controls rating usual care booklet (p<0.0001).ConclusionMultiple RA fatigue impacts can be improved for 2 years by rheumatology teams delivering a group programme using cognitive behavioural approaches.Trial registration numberISRCTN52709998.

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.

No abstract

Summary Background Drugs modifying angiotensin II signalling could reduce Alzheimer's disease pathology, thus decreasing the rate of disease progression. We investigated whether the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan, compared with placebo, could reduce brain volume loss, as a measure of disease progression, in clinically diagnosed mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. Methods In this double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, eligible patients aged 55 years or older, previously untreated with angiotensin II drugs and diagnosed (National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association criteria) with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease, and who had capacity to consent, were recruited from 23 UK National Health Service hospital trusts. After undergoing a 4-week, open-label phase of active treatment then washout, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) oral over-encapsulated preparations of either 100 mg losartan (after an initial two-dose titration stage) or matched placebo daily for 12 months. Randomisation, minimised by age and baseline medial temporal lobe atrophy score, was undertaken online or via pin-access service by telephone. Participants, their study companions, and study personnel were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle (ie, participants analysed in the group to which they were randomised, without imputation for missing data), was change in whole brain volume between baseline and 12 months, measured using volumetric MRI and determined by boundary shift interval (BSI) analysis. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register (ISRCTN93682878) and the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT 2012–003641–15), and is completed. Findings Between July 22, 2014, and May 17, 2018, 261 participants entered the open-label phase. 211 were randomly assigned losartan (n=105) or placebo (n=106). Of 197 (93%) participants who completed the study, 171 (81%) had complete primary outcome data. The mean brain volume (BSI) reduction was 19·1 mL (SD 10·3) in the losartan group and 20·0 mL (10·8) in the placebo group. The difference in total volume reduction between groups was –2·29 mL (95% CI –6·46 to 0·89; p=0·14). The number of adverse events was low (22 in the losartan group and 20 in the placebo group) with no differences between treatment groups. There was one treatment-related death per treatment group. Interpretation 12 months of treatment with losartan was well tolerated but was not effective in reducing the rate of brain atrophy in individuals with clinically diagnosed mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. Further research is needed to assess the potential therapeutic benefit from earlier treatment in patients with milder cognitive impairment or from longer treatm...