Depression: Peveler RC

Anderson IM, Ferrier IN, Baldwin RC, Cowen PJ, Howard L, Lewis G, Matthews K, McAllister-Williams RH, Peveler RC, Scott J, Tylee A. · Senior Lecturer and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, Neuroscience and Psychiatry Unit, University of Manchester, UK. · J Psychopharmacol. · Pubmed #18413657 No free full text.

Abstract: A revision of the 2000 British Association for Psychopharmacology evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants was undertaken to incorporate new evidence and to update the recommendations where appropriate. A consensus meeting involving experts in depressive disorders and their management was held in May 2006. Key areas in treating depression were reviewed, and the strength of evidence and clinical implications were considered. The guidelines were drawn up after extensive feedback from participants and interested parties. A literature review is provided, which identifies the quality of evidence to inform the recommendations, the strength of which are based on the level of evidence. These guidelines cover the nature and detection of depressive disorders, acute treatment with antidepressant drugs, choice of drug versus alternative treatment, practical issues in prescribing and management, next-step treatment, relapse prevention, treatment of relapse, and stopping treatment.

Ostler K, Thompson C, Kinmonth AL, Peveler RC, Stevens L, Stevens A. · Community Based Clinical Sciences Research Division, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Biological Sciences, University of Southampton. · Br J Psychiatry. · Pubmed #11136204 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Health inequalities exist for many disorders, but the contribution of deprivation to the prevalence and outcome of depressive symptoms in primary care populations has been infrequently studied. AIMS: To examine the influence of Jarman under-privileged area (UPA) scores on the prevalence and outcome of depressive symptoms in general practice patients. METHOD: 18 414 patients attending 55 representative practices completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and a questionnaire for employment status. Outcome of those screening positive was assessed at 6 weeks and 6 months. RESULTS: The UPA score accounted for 48.3% of the variance between practices in prevalence of depressive symptoms. Attending a high UPA score practice predicted persistence of depressive symptoms to 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The socio-economic deprivation of a practice locality is a powerful predictor of the prevalence and persistence of depressive symptoms.

George CF, Peveler RC, Heiliger S, Thompson C. · Clinical Pharmacology Group, School of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton. · Br J Clin Pharmacol. · Pubmed #10930969 links to  free full text

Abstract: AIMS: To assess the advantages and disadvantages of four methods for studying compliance with antidepressants: self-report scores, tablet counts, a microprocessor (MEMS) container system and the assay of nordothiepin and dothiepin concentrations in plasma. METHODS: The techniques were used in 88 patients commencing tricyclic antidepressants in the setting of UK general practice. RESULTS: The MEMS system proved to be the most informative technique allowing identification of the precise time of container opening, the demonstration of 'drug holidays' and early cessation of therapy. Self-report scores (Morisky) proved a useful screening technique with a sensitivity of 72.2% and specificity of 74.1% for > or = 80% compliance. Although tablet counts were possible in 84 patients (95. 5%) they were unreliable in 19 (21.6%). Blood concentration assays proved the least acceptable method to patients and were possible in only 53 (60.2%). A ratio of nordothiepin:dothiepin > or = 1.1 claimed, by others, to identify noncompliance was only reliable when concentrations were low. CONCLUSIONS: Both the MEMS system and self-report scores proved useful methods for identifying noncompliant patients in the setting of UK general practice. Although compliance was higher than reported in previous studies with 70 patients (79.5%) completing 6 weeks treatment, general practitioners tended to prescribe subtherapeutic doses.

Thompson C, Peveler RC, Stephenson D, McKendrick J. · Department of Mental Health, University of Southampton, England. · Am J Psychiatry. · Pubmed #10698807 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Many claims have been made for superior compliance with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with tricyclic antidepressants, but to date meta-analyses have not confirmed reduced dropouts in randomized controlled trials. The authors used a randomized study design to evaluate differential compliance with antidepressant medications in a primary care setting. METHOD: A total of 152 patients treated in 10 primary care practices in the United Kingdom were included in a randomized, open-label, parallel-group study of fluoxetine and dothiepin at therapeutic doses for 12 weeks. Compliance was assessed by using pill count, patient questionnaires, and the Medication Event Monitoring System. RESULTS: The level of compliance with fluoxetine was numerically higher than the level of compliance with dothiepin on all three primary outcome measures, although the differences were not significant. In a secondary analysis using data from the Medication Event Monitoring System, both a survival analysis for length of time without a gap in medicine taking and a derived compliance index showed a significant advantage to fluoxetine. Patients in the fluoxetine group reported superior response on the health transition scale of the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey Questionnaire and numerically greater improvement on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. In both treatment arms patients with a superior compliance index were more likely to have improved in Hamilton depression scale scores by the last study visit. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports recent meta-analyses of SSRIs versus tricyclic antidepressants in finding no significant differences in crude indices of compliance between fluoxetine and dothiepin, despite marked differences in side effect profile and dose regimen. However, both a survival analysis and a new measure that takes account of prolonged periods of noncompliance distinguished between the treatments and was associated with improvement in both groups.

Thompson C, Kinmonth AL, Stevens L, Peveler RC, Stevens A, Ostler KJ, Pickering RM, Baker NG, Henson A, Preece J, Cooper D, Campbell MJ. · Department of Mental Health, University of Southampton, Royal South Hants Hospital, Brinton's Terrace, UK. · Lancet. · Pubmed #10675118 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Depression is a major individual and public-health burden throughout the world and is managed mainly in primary care. The most effective strategy to reduce this burden has been believed to be education of primary-care practitioners. We tested this assumption by assessing the effectiveness of an educational programme based on a clinical-practice guideline in improving the recognition and outcome of primary-care depression. METHODS: We carried out a randomised controlled trial in a representative sample of 60 primary-care practices (26% of the total) in an English health district. Education was delivered to practice teams and quality tested by feedback from participants and expert raters. The primary endpoints were recognition of depression, defined by the hospital anxiety and depression (HAD) scale, and clinical improvement. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The education was well received by participants, 80% of whom thought it would change their management of patients with depression. 21409 patients were screened, of whom 4192 were classified as depressed by the HAD scale. The sensitivity of physicians to depressive symptoms was 39% in the intervention group and 36% in the control group after education (odds ratio 1.2 [95% CI 0.88-1.61]). The outcome of depressed patients as a whole at 6 weeks or 6 months after the assessment did not significantly improve. INTERPRETATION: Although well received, this in-practice programme, which was designed to convey the current consensus on best practice for the care of depression, did not deliver improvements in recognition of or recovery from depression.

Holt RI, Phillips DI, Jameson KA, Cooper C, Dennison EM, Peveler RC, Anonymous00076. · The Institute of Developmental Sciences (IDS Building), MP887, Developmental Origins of Health and Disease Division, School of Medicine, University of Southampton, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK. · Diabet Med. · Pubmed #19538241 No free full text.

Abstract: AIMS: To assess the relationship between depression scores and diabetes, glucose and insulin in a cross-sectional population-based study. METHODS: One thousand, five hundred and seventy-nine men and 1418 women from the Hertfordshire Cohort Study were assessed for diabetes. Plasma glucose and insulin concentrations were measured at 0, 30 and 120 min during a standard 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. Depressive and anxiety symptoms were measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: Overall, 431 (14.6%) were diagnosed with diabetes [232 men (14.9%) and 199 women (14.3%)]. One hundred and eight (47%) men and 74 (37%) women had known diabetes. The remainder were previously undiagnosed. Fifty-nine (3.7%) men and 65 (4.6%) women had possible depression (HAD-D scores 8-10) and 17 (1.1%) men and 20 (1.4%) women had probable depression (HAD-D scores > or = 11). Probable depression was associated with an adjusted odds ratio for diabetes of 3.89 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28-11.88] in men and 1.51 (95% CI 0.47-4.84) in women. In men without previously diagnosed diabetes, fasting insulin (P = 0.035), 2-h glucose concentrations (P = 0.028) and insulin resistance (P = 0.032) were significantly associated with HAD-D scores. With the exception of 2-h glucose concentrations (P = 0.034), the associations were not significant in women. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the hypothesis that depression may increase the risk for diabetes. The relationship between depression score and metabolic variables extends across the whole population and is not confined to those with either diagnosed depression or diabetes. This relationship should lead clinicians to consider screening for diabetes in those with depression and vice versa.

Perahia DG, Quail D, Gandhi P, Walker DJ, Peveler RC. · Lilly Research Centre, Windlesham, UK. · J Affect Disord. · Pubmed #17905442 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that combining antidepressant medication with a standardized telephone adherence support intervention would lead to superior outcomes in the treatment of depression compared with antidepressant medication alone. METHOD: Patients with depression were randomized to receive the antidepressant duloxetine alone (DLX), or duloxetine plus a standardized telephone intervention (DLX+TI), for 12 weeks of open-label treatment. The primary outcome measure was remission (HAMD 17 total score <or=7) at study endpoint. Safety and tolerability were assessed via reporting of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), vital signs and laboratory measures. The TI was delivered approximately 1, 4, and 9 weeks after initiation of duloxetine. RESULTS: The DLX (N=485) and DLX+TI (N=477) groups did not differ significantly at baseline. At study endpoint, remission rates (42.8% vs. 43.5%, P=0.87), response rates (56.6% vs. 58.4%, P=0.58) and other secondary outcomes were similar between the groups. A similar proportion of patients in each group completed the study, and adverse event discontinuation rates were not significantly different (10.7% vs. 13.0%, P=0.318). More AEs were reported by patients in the DLX+TI group, however, and constipation (3.5% vs. 10.1%, P<0.001) and hot flush (0.2% vs. 1.7%, P=0.020) were reported by more DLX+TI patients. Adherence to medication was high (>90% at every visit) in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: A telephone intervention in combination with antidepressant medication (duloxetine) did not improve depression outcomes compared with antidepressant alone in this clinical trial, perhaps due to high drug adherence in both treatment groups. Addition of a telephone intervention was, however, associated with increased reporting of AEs.

Jones RM, Butler JA, Thomas VA, Peveler RC, Prevett M. · Mental Health Group, Community Clinical Sciences Division, University of Southampton, Royal South Hants Hospital, Brintons Terrace, Southampton SO14 OYG, United Kingdom. · Seizure. · Pubmed #16861012 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study investigated non-adherence to antiepileptic drug treatment amongst patients with epilepsy in secondary care. The associations between adherence and seizure control, perceptions of illness and medication, anxiety and depression were also examined. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of fifty-four patients with epilepsy were recruited from a hospital epilepsy clinic. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent were estimated to be non-adherent to medication. There was a negative correlation between adherence and frequency of seizures. Patients with poorly controlled epilepsy were more anxious, and expected a longer duration of their epilepsy. CONCLUSION: Assessment of adherence should be a routine part of management of epilepsy. Further recognition and support should be given to patients who have poor seizure control since they are more likely to be more anxious and have unhelpful illness and treatment beliefs.

Butler JA, Peveler RC, Roderick P, Smith PW, Horne R, Mason JC. · Mental Health Group, Royal South Hants Hospital, Southampton SO14 0YG, UK. · Nephrol Dial Transplant. · Pubmed #15479748 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to immunosuppressants is a major cause of renal transplant failure. Interventions to improve adherence need to target modifiable risk factors. METHODS: Adherence was measured using the 'gold standard' measure of electronic monitoring in 58 adult renal transplant recipients from a UK transplant unit. Subjects were identified from a stratified random sample of 153 recipients recruited to a larger cross-sectional study comparing different measures of adherence. Inclusion criteria included age over 18 years and a functioning renal transplant, transplanted 6-63 months previously. Exclusion criteria included residence outside the region served by the unit and inability to give informed consent. Health beliefs, depression and functional status were measured using standardized questionnaires (Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire, Illness Perception Questionnaire, Revised Clinical Interview Schedule and SF-36) and semi-structured interview. Transplant and demographic details were collected from the notes. RESULTS: Seven [12%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4-20%] subjects missed at least 20% of days medication and 15 (26%, 15-37%) missed at least 10% of days. Lower belief in the need for medication and having a transplant from a live donor were the major factors associated with non-adherence. Depression was common, although not strongly associated with non-adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Beliefs about medication are a promising target for interventions designed to improve adherence. The lower adherence in recipients of transplants from live donors needs confirming but may be clinically important in light of the drive to increase live donation.

Thompson C, Ostler K, Peveler RC, Baker N, Kinmonth AL. · Community Clinical Sciences Research Division, Faculty of Medicine Health and Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southhampton, UK. · Br J Psychiatry. · Pubmed #11581111 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Most studies of the recognition of depression in primary care have used a categorical definition of depression. This may overstate the extent of the problem. AIMS: Our objective was to investigate the relationship between severity and recognition of depression, and its modification by patient and practitioner characteristics. METHOD: An association study in multiple consecutive adult cohorts of 18 414 primary care consultations drawn from a representative sample of 156 general practitioners in Hampshire, UK. RESULTS: There was a curvilinear relationship between the severity of depression and practitioners' ratings of depression. One case of probable depression was missed in every 28.6 consultations. Anxiety and unemployment altered the chances of recognition, but age, gender and deprivation scores did not. CONCLUSIONS: A dimensional approach to severity of depression shows that general practitioners may be better able to recognise depression than previous categorical studies have suggested. Efforts to improve the care of depression should therefore focus on doctors who have been shown to have difficulty making the diagnosis and on improving the treatment of identified patients.