Closing the antidepressant efficacy gap between clinical trials and real patient populations

Abstract

Overall, patient outcomes in the primary care of depression are seldom as good as those achieved in clinical trials – the “efficacy gap”. Many factors contribute to this, including poor patient compliance, poor family and social support and negative media reporting of antidepressants. Indeed, negative media reporting has had far more impact on physicians’ prescribing of antidepressants than have regulatory agencies, partly as a result of changing public attitudes. Negative media reports linking SSRIs to increased child suicide rates have also resulted in a decline in the prescribing of SSRIs to this age group, but with no concomitant increase in the prescribing of fluoxetine, the only antidepressant recommended for the treatment of children. There are also inadequacies in the guidelines available to primary care givers that might contribute to the efficacy gap. Guidelines can be too specific for clinical practice – especially where depression coexists with anxiety disorders – and too passive, resulting in delayed or inadequate intervention. Evidence suggests that many physicians prefer to be more proactive. In the recent AHEAD survey, physicians identified faster resolution of symptoms as the property most desirable for improving antidepressant therapy. There is recent evidence that structured long-term therapy and easily-implemented measurement-based care procedures can improve remission rates and help bridge the efficacy gap. If these can be allied with greater public/media understanding of depression and its treatment, along with improved guidelines, then significant progress can be anticipated in the management of mood disorders.