Randomised controlled trial comparing problem solving treatment with amitriptyline and placebo for major depression in primary care
L M Mynors-Wallis, D H Gath, A R Lloyd-Thomas, D Tomlinson, L M Mynors-Wallis, D H Gath, A R Lloyd-Thomas, D Tomlinson
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether, in the treatment of major depression in primary care, a brief psychological treatment (problem solving) was (a) as effective as antidepressant drugs and more effective than placebo; (b) feasible in practice; and (c) acceptable to patients.
Design: Randomised controlled trial of problem solving treatment, amitriptyline plus standard clinical management, and drug placebo plus standard clinical management. Each treatment was delivered in six sessions over 12 weeks.
Setting: Primary care in Oxfordshire.
Subjects: 91 patients in primary care who had major depression.
Main outcome measures: Observer and self reported measures of severity of depression, self reported measure of social outcome, and observer measure of psychological symptoms at six and 12 weeks; self reported measure of patient satisfaction at 12 weeks. Numbers of patients recovered at six and 12 weeks.
Results: At six and 12 weeks the difference in score on the Hamilton rating scale for depression between problem solving and placebo treatments was significant (5.3 (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 9.0) and 4.7 (0.4 to 9.0) respectively), but the difference between problem solving and amitriptyline was not significant (1.8 (-1.8 to 5.5) and 0.9 (-3.3 to 5.2) respectively). At 12 weeks 60% (18/30) of patients given problem solving treatment had recovered on the Hamilton scale compared with 52% (16/31) given amitriptyline and 27% (8/30) given placebo. Patients were satisfied with problem solving treatment; all patients who completed treatment (28/30) rated the treatment as helpful or very helpful. The six sessions of problem solving treatment totalled a mean therapy time of 3 1/2 hours.
Conclusions: As a treatment for major depression in primary care, problem solving treatment is effective, feasible, and acceptable to patients.
References
- Dis Nerv Syst. 1970 Jan;31(1):30-42
- Br J Gen Pract. 1991 Aug;41(349):315-9
- Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961 Jun;4:561-71
- BMJ. 1992 Apr 4;304(6831):883-7
- Psychol Med. 1991 Nov;21(4):1013-8
- Br Med J. 1970 Mar 28;1(5699):773-8
- Br Med J. 1971 Jan 16;1(5741):133-8
- J R Coll Gen Pract. 1977 Jul;27(180):419-22
- Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978 Jun;35(6):773-82
- Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 1981;290:447-53
- Psychol Med. 1981 May;11(2):417-23
- Br J Psychiatry. 1981 Sep;139:181-9
- Psychol Med. 1981 Nov;11(4):755-64
- Br J Psychiatry. 1982 Jul;141:68-75
- Psychol Med. 1982 Nov;12(4):741-51
- Br J Psychiatry. 1984 Apr;144:400-6
- J R Coll Gen Pract. 1985 May;35(274):239-42
- Psychopharmacol Bull. 1987;23(2):309-24
- J Affect Disord. 1988 Jan-Feb;14(1):83-95
- Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1988;95 Suppl:S14-7
- JAMA. 1989 Aug 18;262(7):914-9
- Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991 Sep;48(9):851-5
- Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1967 Dec;6(4):278-96
Source: PubMed