Explore the vast range of titles available.

Depression is a common, debilitating, and costly disorder. Many patients request psychological therapy, but the best-evidenced therapy—cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)—is complex and costly. A simpler therapy—behavioural activation (BA)—might be as effective and cheaper than is CBT. We aimed to establish the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for adults with depression. In this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults aged 18 years or older meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria for major depressive disorder from primary care and psychological therapy services in Devon, Durham, and Leeds (UK). We excluded people who were receiving psychological therapy, were alcohol or drug dependent, were acutely suicidal or had attempted suicide in the previous 2 months, or were cognitively impaired, or who had bipolar disorder or psychosis or psychotic symptoms. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) remotely using computer-generated allocation (minimisation used; stratified by depression severity [Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score of <19 vs ≥19], antidepressant use, and recruitment site) to BA from junior mental health workers or CBT from psychological therapists. Randomisation done at the Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit was concealed from investigators. Treatment was given open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome was depression symptoms according to the PHQ-9 at 12 months. We analysed all those who were randomly allocated and had complete data (modified intention to treat [mITT]) and also all those who were randomly allocated, had complete data, and received at least eight treatment sessions (per protocol [PP]). We analysed safety in the mITT population. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9 PHQ-9 points. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN27473954. Between Sept 26, 2012, and April 3, 2014, we randomly allocated 221 (50%) participants to BA and 219 (50%) to CBT. 175 (79%) participants were assessable for the primary outcome in the mITT population in the BA group compared with 189 (86%) in the CBT group, whereas 135 (61%) were assessable in the PP population in the BA group compared with 151 (69%) in the CBT group. BA was non-inferior to CBT (mITT: CBT 8·4 PHQ-9 points [SD 7·5], BA 8·4 PHQ-9 points [7·0], mean difference 0·1 PHQ-9 points [95% CI −1·3 to 1·5], p=0·89; PP: CBT 7·9 PHQ-9 points [7·3]; BA 7·8 [6·5], mean difference 0·0 PHQ-9 points [–1·5 to 1·6], p=0·99). Two (1%) non-trial-related deaths (one [1%] multidrug toxicity in the BA group and one [1%] cancer in the CBT group) and 15 depression-related, but not treatment-related, serious adverse events (three in the BA group and 12 in the CBT group) occurred in three [2%] participants in the BA group (two [1%] patients who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed) and eight (4%) participants in the CBT group (seven [4%] who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed). We found that BA, a simpler psychological treatment than CBT, can be delivered by junior mental health workers with less intensive and costly training, with no lesser effect than CBT. Effective psychological therapy for depression can be delivered without the need for costly and highly trained professionals. National Institute for Health Research.

ObjectivesThe current study aimed to explore participants’ views on the acceptability, impact and mechanisms of change of Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT), a novel wellbeing-focused and recovery-oriented psychological therapy for depression.DesignA semi-structured qualitative interview design was used, with data analysed using the framework approach.Participants20 participants with anhedonic depression who had received up to 20 sessions of ADepT, sampled from a pilot randomised controlled trial of ADepT versus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT).SettingA primary care psychological therapy clinic in Devon, UK, with interviews occurring between May 2018 and February 2020.ResultsParticipants found the wellbeing focus of ADepT acceptable. Helpful aspects of therapy were a positive therapeutic bond, the structure and flow of therapy scaffolding the learning journey, the tools and techniques of therapy helping building wellbeing and booster sessions supporting long-term recovery. Negative aspects for some participants were therapy feeling too intense and triggering feelings of failure. Participants reported significant positive impacts of treatment on wellbeing, functioning and hope. Perceived mechanisms of change were reorienting to the positive, engaging with valued goals, taking a proactive life stance, gaining confidence and motivation for change, breaking down tasks into small steps, cultivating self-care and self-compassion, enhancing help seeking and interpersonal effectiveness, changing the relationship to depression, and rediscovering the self beyond depression.ConclusionsFindings suggest that the wellbeing focus of ADepT is acceptable and leads to positive impacts, supports the logic model underpinning the intervention, and warrants continuation to a definitive trial.Trial registration numberISRCTN85278228.

Background While existing psychological treatments for depression are effective for many, a significant proportion of depressed individuals do not respond to current approaches and few remain well over the long-term. Anhedonia (a loss of interest or pleasure) is a core symptom of depression which predicts a poor prognosis but has been neglected by existing treatments. Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT) has been co-designed with service users to better target anhedonia alongside other features of depression. This mixed methods pilot trial aims to establish proof of concept for ADepT and to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a future definitive trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ADepT, compared to an evidence-based mainstream therapy (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy; CBT) in the acute treatment of depression, the prevention of subsequent depressive relapse, and the enhancement of wellbeing. Methods We aim to recruit 80 depressed participants and randomise them 1:1 to receive ADepT (15 weekly acute and 5 booster sessions in following year) or CBT (20 weekly acute sessions). Clinical and health economic assessments will take place at intake and at 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up. Reductions in PHQ-9 depression severity and increases in WEMWBS wellbeing at 6-month assessment (when acute treatment should be completed) are the co-primary outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative process evaluation will assess mechanism of action, implementation issues, and contextual moderating factors. To evaluate proof of concept, intake-post effect sizes and the proportion of individuals showing reliable and clinically significant change on outcome measures in each arm at each follow-up will be reported. To evaluate feasibility and acceptability, we will examine recruitment, retention, treatment completion, and data completeness rates and feedback from patients and therapists about their experience of study participation and therapy. Additionally, we will establish the cost of delivery of ADepT. Discussion We will proceed to definitive trial if any concerns about the safety, acceptability, feasibility, and proof of concept of ADepT and trial procedures can be rectified, and we recruit, retain, and collect follow-up data on at least 60% of the target sample. Trial registration ISCRTN85278228 , registered 27/03/2017

Background Older people with multimorbidity often experience polypharmacy. Taking multiple medicines can be beneficial; however, some older adults are prescribed multiple medicines when they are unlikely to improve clinical outcomes and may lead to harm. Deprescribing means reducing or stopping prescription medicines which may no longer be providing benefit. While appropriate deprescribing may usually be safely undertaken, there is a lack of guidance about how to implement it in practice settings such as care homes. Implementing deprescribing in care homes is often challenging, due to differing concerns of residents, staff, clinicians, friends/family members and carers along with differences in care home structures. The STOPPING study will support the development of better deprescribing practice in care homes, considering different views and environments. This paper aims to introduce the research protocol. Methods We will use qualitative approaches informed by the widely accepted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to aid analysis. To understand the barriers, facilitators, and contextual factors influencing deprescribing in care homes, we will employ individual interviews with care home residents and family members, focus groups with care home staff and healthcare professionals, and observations from care homes. Then, we will examine acceptability, feasibility, and suitability of existing deprescribing approaches using cognitive interviews with care home staff and healthcare professionals. Lastly, we will use narrative synthesis to integrate findings and develop guidance for implementing a deprescribing approach for care homes. Discussion This research will support the development of implementable approaches to deprescribing in care homes. The insights from this project will be shared with various stakeholders: care home residents, staff, pharmacists, general practitioners, nurses, and other health professionals, carers, researchers, and the public. This work will support deprescribing to be implemented effectively in care homes to benefit residents and the wider health economy.

IntroductionPatient experience of nursing care is correlated with safety, clinical effectiveness, care quality, treatment outcomes and service use. Effective nursing care includes actions to develop nurse–patient relationships and deliver physical and psychosocial care to patients. The high risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus compromises nursing care. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, leading to potential variations in patient experience, outcomes, quality and costs.Methods and analysiswe aim to recruit 840 in-patient participants treated for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus from 14 UK hospitals, to a cluster randomised controlled trial, with embedded process and economic evaluations, of care as usual and a fundamental nursing care protocol addressing specific areas of physical, relational and psychosocial nursing care where potential variation may occur, compared with care as usual. Our coprimary outcomes are patient-reported experience (Quality from the Patients’ Perspective; Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire); secondary outcomes include care quality (pressure injuries, falls, medication errors); functional ability (Barthell Index); treatment outcomes (WHO Clinical Progression Scale); depression Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), anxiety General Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2), health utility (EQ5D) and nurse-reported outcomes (Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals). For our primary analysis, we will use a standard generalised linear mixed-effect model adjusting for ethnicity of the patient sample and research intensity at cluster level. We will also undertake a planned subgroup analysis to compare the impact of patient-level ethnicity on our primary and secondary outcomes and will undertake process and economic evaluations.Ethics and disseminationResearch governance and ethical approvals are from the UK National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Service. Dissemination will be open access through peer-reviewed scientific journals, study website, press and online media, including free online training materials on the Open University’s FutureLearn web platform.Trial registration numberISRCTN13177364; Pre-results.

Background Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. However, CBT is a complex therapy that requires highly trained and qualified practitioners, and its scalability is therefore limited by the costs of training and employing sufficient therapists to meet demand. Behavioural activation (BA) is a psychological treatment for depression that may be an effective alternative to CBT and, because it is simpler, might also be delivered by less highly trained and specialised mental health workers. Methods/Design COBRA is a two-arm, non-inferiority, patient-level randomised controlled trial, including clinical, economic, and process evaluations comparing CBT delivered by highly trained professional therapists to BA delivered by junior professional or para-professional mental health workers to establish whether the clinical effectiveness of BA is non-inferior to CBT and if BA is cost effective compared to CBT. Four hundred and forty patients with major depressive disorder will be recruited through screening in primary care. We will analyse for non-inferiority in per-protocol and intention-to-treat populations. Our primary outcome will be severity of depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be clinically significant change and severity of depression at 18 months, and anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (Short-Form Health Survey-36) at 12 and 18 months. Our economic evaluation will take the United Kingdom National Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective to include costs of the interventions, health and social care services used, plus productivity losses. Cost-effectiveness will explored in terms of quality-adjusted life years using the EuroQol-5D measure of health-related quality of life. Discussion The clinical and economic outcomes of this trial will provide the evidence to help policy makers, clinicians and guideline developers decide on the merits of including BA as a first-line treatment of depression. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954

Background: Older people with multimorbidity often experience polypharmacy. Taking multiple medicines can be beneficial; however, some older adults are prescribed multiple medicines when they are unlikely to improve clinical outcomes and may lead to harm. Deprescribing means reducing or stopping prescription medicines which may no longer be providing benefit. While appropriate deprescribing may usually be safely undertaken, there is a lack of guidance about how to implement it in practice settings such as care homes. Implementing deprescribing in care homes is often challenging, due to differing concerns of residents, staff, clinicians, friends/family members and carers along with differences in care home structures. The STOPPING study will support the development of better deprescribing practice in care homes, considering different views and environments. This paper aims to introduce the research protocol. Methods: We will use qualitative approaches informed by the widely accepted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to aid analysis. To understand the barriers, facilitators and contextual factors influencing deprescribing in care homes, we will employ individual interviews with care home residents and family members, focus groups with care home staff and healthcare professionals, and observations from care homes. Then, we will examine acceptability, feasibility, and suitability of existing deprescribing approaches using cognitive interviews with care home staff and healthcare professionals. Lastly, we will use narrative synthesis to integrate findings and develop guidance for implementing a deprescribing approach for care homes. Discussion: This research will support the development of implementable approaches to deprescribing in care homes. The insights from this project will be shared with various stakeholders: care home residents, staff, pharmacists, general practitioners, nurses, and other health professionals, carers, researchers, and the public. This work will support deprescribing to be implemented effectively in care homes to benefit residents and the wider health economy.

Global sustainability agendas focus primarily on halting deforestation, yet the biodiversity crisis resulting from the degradation of remaining forests is going largely unnoticed. Forest degradation occurs through the loss of key ecological structures, such as dying trees and deadwood, even in the absence of deforestation. One of the main drivers of forest degradation is limited awareness by policy makers and the public on the importance of these structures for supporting forest biodiversity and ecosystem function. Here, we outline management strategies to protect forest health and biodiversity by maintaining and promoting deadwood, and propose environmental education initiatives to improve the general awareness of the importance of deadwood. Finally, we call for major reforms to forest management to maintain and restore deadwood; large, old trees; and other key ecological structures.

Whether G protein-coupled receptors signal from endosomes to control important pathophysiological processes and are therapeutic targets is uncertain. We report that opioids from the inflamed colon activate δ-opioid receptors (DOPr) in endosomes of nociceptors. Biopsy samples of inflamed colonic mucosa from patients and mice with colitis released opioids that activated DOPr on nociceptors to cause a sustained decrease in excitability. DOPr agonists inhibited mechanically sensitive colonic nociceptors. DOPr endocytosis and endosomal signaling by protein kinase C (PKC) and extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathways mediated the sustained inhibitory actions of endogenous opioids and DOPr agonists. DOPr agonists stimulated the recruitment of Gαi/o and β-arrestin1/2 to endosomes. Analysis of compartmentalized signaling revealed a requirement of DOPr endocytosis for activation of PKC at the plasma membrane and in the cytosol and ERK in the nucleus. We explored a nanoparticle delivery strategy to evaluate whether endosomal DOPr might be a therapeutic target for pain. The DOPr agonist DADLE was coupled to a liposome shell for targeting DOPr-positive nociceptors and incorporated into a mesoporous silica core for release in the acidic and reducing endosomal environment. Nanoparticles activated DOPr at the plasma membrane, were preferentially endocytosed by DOPr-expressing cells, and were delivered to DOPr-positive early endosomes. Nanoparticles caused a long-lasting activation of DOPr in endosomes, which provided sustained inhibition of nociceptor excitability and relief from inflammatory pain. Conversely, nanoparticles containing a DOPr antagonist abolished the sustained inhibitory effects of DADLE. Thus, DOPr in endosomes is an endogenous mechanism and a therapeutic target for relief from chronic inflammatory pain.

Cathepsin S is a cysteine protease that has been implicated in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) for its ability to promote visceral pain. Given its pro-inflammatory roles, we hypothesized that cathepsin S would drive other symptoms associated with IBD. Using activity-based probes, we investigated cysteine cathepsin activation in human and murine colitis. We observed a significant increase in fecal cathepsin S in patients with ulcerative colitis compared to healthy controls, while cathepsin S in mucosal biopsies was unchanged. Mice with experimental colitis exhibited a modest increase in mucosal activity of both cathepsin S and X compared to naïve mice. Luminal secretion of cathepsin S was dramatically increased upon colitis induction, although differences between mouse colonies were observed. To investigate the contribution of cathepsin S and cathepsin X to colitis, we induced colitis in cathepsin-deficient mice. Cathepsin X-deficient mice exhibited no clear differences in disease indicators compared to wild-type mice. While cathepsin S-deficient mice exhibited less rectal bleeding, less splenomegaly and marginally improved histological scores, weight loss, diarrhea, colon shortening, and myeloperoxidase activity were not significantly different from wild-type mice. To determine whether pharmacologic inhibition of cathepsin S activity would ameliorate symptoms of colitis, a reversible inhibitor LY3000328 was administered to mice at the initiation of colitis. LY3000328 provoked a clear upregulation of cathepsin S and L activity in the mucosa, most likely through a compensatory mechanism. This increase in protease activity was associated with exacerbated histological scores and slight splenomegaly. Collectively, these results suggest that cathepsin S, but not cathepsin X, may contribute to some of the symptoms of experimental colitis. While cathepsin S has potential to be a therapeutic target in colitis, improved strategies to sustain its inhibition are required in future.