Antidepressants In Primary Care Research Articles

Combining antidepressants and attention bias modification in primary health care (DEPTREAT): Protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BackgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent psychiatric condition associated with significant disability, mortality and economic burden. A large proportion of MDD patients are treated in primary health care in the local community. Attentional Bias Modification (ABM) training in combination with antidepressants could be an effective treatment. Here we test the hypothesis that adding an ABM procedure to regular treatment with antidepressants in primary health care will result in further improvement of symptoms compared to treatment with antidepressants alone (treatment as usual, TAU) and as compared to an active comparison condition. MethodsA total of 246 patients with a diagnosis of MDD will be included in this study. The study is a three-armed pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of ABM as add-on to treatment with antidepressants in primary care (ABM condition) compared to standard antidepressant treatment (TAU condition). In a third group participants will complete the same schedule of intermediate assessments as the ABM condition in addition to TAU, but no ABM, thus controlling for the non-training-specific aspects of the ABM condition (Antidepressant active comparison group). DiscussionThe clinical outcome of this study may help develop easily accessible, low-cost treatment of depression in primary health care. Moreover, the study aims to broaden our knowledge of optimal treatment for patients with a MDD by providing adjunct treatment to facilitate recovery and long-term gain.

A guide to prescribing antidepressants in primary care

Many newer primary care professionals have limited experience of psychiatry, yet need to manage patients on multiple medications including antidepressants. This article outlines common prescribing dilemmas and solutions for novice primary care prescribers managing patients who require antidepressant therapy.

Antidepressant medication to prevent depression relapse in primary care: the ANTLER RCT.

There has been a steady increase in the number of primary care patients receiving long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment, despite limited evidence of a benefit of this treatment beyond 8 months. The ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession (ANTLER) trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressant medication in preventing relapse in UK primary care. This was a Phase IV, double-blind, pragmatic, multisite, individually randomised parallel-group controlled trial, with follow-up at 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. Participants were randomised using minimisation on centre, type of antidepressant and baseline depressive symptom score above or below the median using Clinical Interview Schedule - Revised (two categories). Statisticians were blind to allocation for the outcome analyses. General practices in London, Bristol, Southampton and York. Individuals aged 18-74 years who had experienced at least two episodes of depression and had been taking antidepressants for ≥ 9 months but felt well enough to consider stopping their medication. Those who met an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of depression or with other psychiatric conditions were excluded. At baseline, participants were taking citalopram 20 mg, sertraline 100 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg or mirtazapine 30 mg. They were randomised to either remain on their current medication or discontinue medication after a tapering period. The primary outcome was the time, in weeks, to the beginning of the first depressive episode after randomisation. This was measured by a retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule - Revised that assessed the onset of a depressive episode in the previous 12 weeks, and was conducted at 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. The depression-related resource use was collected over 12 months from medical records and patient-completed questionnaires. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. Between 9 March 2017 and 1 March 2019, we randomised 238 participants to antidepressant continuation (the maintenance group) and 240 participants to antidepressant discontinuation (the discontinuation group). The time to relapse of depression was shorter in the discontinuation group, with a hazard ratio of 2.06 (95% confidence interval 1.56 to 2.70; p < 0.0001). By 52 weeks, relapse was experienced by 39% of those who continued antidepressants and 56% of those who discontinued antidepressants. The secondary analysis revealed that people who discontinued experienced more withdrawal symptoms than those who remained on medication, with the largest difference at 12 weeks. In the discontinuation group, 37% (95% confidence interval 28% to 45%) of participants remained on their randomised medication until the end of the trial. In total, 39% (95% confidence interval 32% to 45%) of participants in the discontinuation group returned to their original antidepressant compared with 20% (95% confidence interval 15% to 25%) of participants in maintenance group. The health economic evaluation demonstrated that participants randomised to discontinuation had worse utility scores at 3 months (-0.037, 95% confidence interval -0.059 to -0.015) and fewer quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months (-0.019, 95% confidence interval -0.035 to -0.003) than those randomised to continuation. The discontinuation pathway, besides giving worse outcomes, also cost more [extra £2.71 per patient over 12 months (95% confidence interval -£36.10 to £37.07)] than the continuation pathway, although the cost difference was not significant. Patients who discontinue long-term maintenance antidepressants in primary care are at increased risk of relapse and withdrawal symptoms. However, a substantial proportion of patients can discontinue antidepressants without relapse. Our findings will give patients and clinicians an estimate of the likely benefits and harms of stopping long-term maintenance antidepressants and improve shared decision-making. The participants may not have been representative of all people on long-term maintenance treatment and we could study only a restricted range of antidepressants and doses. Identifying patients who will not relapse if they discontinued antidepressants would be clinically important. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15969819 and EudraCT 2015-004210-26. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 69. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Maintenance or Discontinuation of Antidepressants in Primary Care

BackgroundPatients with depression who are treated in primary care practices may receive antidepressants for prolonged periods. Data are limited on the effects of maintaining or discontinuing antidepressant therapy in this setting.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving adults who were being treated in 150 general practices in the United Kingdom. All the patients had a history of at least two depressive episodes or had been taking antidepressants for 2 years or longer and felt well enough to consider stopping antidepressants. Patients who had received citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, or mirtazapine were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to maintain their current antidepressant therapy (maintenance group) or to taper and discontinue such therapy with the use of matching placebo (discontinuation group). The primary outcome was the first relapse of depression during the 52-week trial period, as evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, physical and withdrawal symptoms, quality of life, time to stopping an antidepressant or placebo, and global mood ratings.ResultsA total of 1466 patients underwent screening. Of these patients, 478 were enrolled in the trial (238 in the maintenance group and 240 in the discontinuation group). The average age of the patients was 54 years; 73% were women. Adherence to the trial assignment was 70% in the maintenance group and 52% in the discontinuation group. By 52 weeks, relapse occurred in 92 of 238 patients (39%) in the maintenance group and in 135 of 240 (56%) in the discontinuation group (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 2.70; P<0.001). Secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as the primary outcome. Patients in the discontinuation group had more symptoms of depression, anxiety, and withdrawal than those in the maintenance group.ConclusionsAmong patients in primary care practices who felt well enough to discontinue antidepressant therapy, those who were assigned to stop their medication had a higher risk of relapse of depression by 52 weeks than those who were assigned to maintain their current therapy. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; ANTLER ISRCTN number, ISRCTN15969819.)

A Digital Intervention for Primary Care Practitioners to Support Antidepressant Discontinuation (Advisor for Health Professionals): Development Study.

BackgroundThe number of people receiving antidepressants has increased in the past 3 decades, mainly because of people staying on them longer. However, in many cases long-term treatment is not evidence based and risks increasing side effects. Additionally, prompting general practitioners (GPs) to review medication does not improve the rate of appropriate discontinuation. Therefore, GPs and other health professionals may need help to support patients discontinuing antidepressants in primary care.ObjectiveThis study aims to develop a digital intervention to support practitioners in helping patients discontinue inappropriate long-term antidepressants (as part of a wider intervention package including a patient digital intervention and patient telephone support).MethodsA prototype digital intervention called Advisor for Health Professionals (ADvisor HP) was planned and developed using theory, evidence, and a person-based approach. The following elements informed development: a literature review and qualitative synthesis, an in-depth qualitative study, the development of guiding principles for design elements, and theoretical behavioral analyses. The intervention was then optimized through think-aloud qualitative interviews with health professionals while they were using the prototype intervention.ResultsThink-aloud qualitative interviews with 19 health professionals suggested that the digital intervention contained useful information and was readily accessible to practitioners. The development work highlighted a need for further guidance on drug tapering schedules for practitioners and clarity about who is responsible for broaching the subject of discontinuation. Practitioners highlighted the need to have information in easily and quickly accessible formats because of time constraints in day-to-day practice. Some GPs felt that some information was already known to them but understood why this was included. Practitioners differed in their ideas about how they would use ADvisor HP in practice, with some preferring to read the resource in its entirety and others wanting to dip in and out as needed. Changes were made to the wording and structure of the intervention in response to the feedback provided.ConclusionsADvisor HP is a digital intervention that has been developed using theory, evidence, and a person-based approach. The optimization work suggests that practitioners may find this tool to be useful in supporting the reduction of long-term antidepressant use. Further quantitative and qualitative evaluation through a randomized controlled trial is needed to examine the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

Influences on the use of antidepressants in primary care: All England general practice-level analysis of demographic, practice-level and prescriber factors.

General practice (GP) antidepressants (ADs) prescribing in England has almost doubled in the past decade: how does location, GP characteristics, and prescribing selection influence antidepressant prescribing rate (ADPR) and growth. Stepwise multivariate regression analysis was applied to national public relevant data for each general practice to establish associations between these factors and ADPR. The regression coefficient was applied to the actual change in the number of different ADs and costs/dose to extrapolate the impact of these on growth. In 2017-2018, 2.1 billion doses of antidepressant were prescribed into a population of 52 million people in 6,146 larger practices. In the model, location demographics accounted for 62% of the variation in ADPR: including practice size and health raised this to 71%, and local prescribing behaviour to 80%. Practices using more different drugs and lower-cost/dose had higher ADPR. Extrapolation showed that 40% of growth in ADPR could be attributed to the historic changes in these factors. While practice location factors do impact on AD prescription rates, local long-term physical health condition prevalence and prescribing behaviours are almost as important. We hope that our findings can provide insights that are helpful to local clinical behaviour and medicines management.

Secondary care specialist visits made by children and young people prescribed antidepressants in primary care: a descriptive study using the QResearch database

BackgroundAntidepressants may be used to manage a number of conditions in children and young people including depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. UK guidelines for the treatment of depression in children and young people recommend that antidepressants should only be initiated following assessment and diagnosis by a child and adolescent psychiatrist. The aim of this study was to summarise visits to mental health specialists and indications recorded around the time of antidepressant initiation in children and young people in UK primary care.MethodsThe study used linked English primary care electronic health records and Hospital Episode Statistics secondary care data. The study included 5–17-year-olds first prescribed antidepressants between January 2006 and December 2017. Records of visits to paediatric or psychiatric specialists and potential indications (from a pre-specified list) were extracted. Events were counted if recorded less than 12 months before or 6 months after the first antidepressant prescription. Results were stratified by first antidepressant type (all, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), tricyclic and related antidepressants) and by age group (5–11 years, 12–17 years).ResultsIn total, 33,031 5–17-year-olds were included. Of these, 12,149 (37%) had a record of visiting a paediatrician or a psychiatric specialist in the specified time window. The majority of recorded visits (7154, 22%) were to paediatricians. Of those prescribed SSRIs, 5463/22,130 (25%) had a record of visiting a child and adolescent psychiatrist. Overall, 17,972 (54%) patients had a record of at least one of the pre-specified indications. Depression was the most frequently recorded indication (12,501, 38%), followed by anxiety (4155, 13%).ConclusionsThe results suggest many children and young people are being prescribed antidepressants without the recommended involvement of a relevant specialist. These findings may justify both greater training for GPs in child and adolescent mental health and greater access to specialist care and non-pharmacological treatments. Further research is needed to explore factors that influence how and why GPs prescribe antidepressants to children and young people and the real-world practice barriers to adherence to clinical guidelines.

Five Interpersonal Factors Are Predictive of the Response to Treatment of Major Depression With Antidepressants in Primary Care.

Introduction: Factors relating to the interpersonal relationship between the patient and their physician and social environment are important components, which contribute to their response to treatment for major depressive disorder. This study aimed to assess the influence of optimism, perfectionism, therapeutic alliance, empathy, social support, and adherence to medication regimen in the response to antidepressant treatments in the context of normal primary care clinical practice.Method: We conducted a prospective study in which 24 primary care physicians administered sertraline or escitalopram to 89 patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder. The response to treatment and remission of the episode was assessed at 4 and 12 weeks by Cox regression. The effect of adherence to the medication regimen was assessed by multiple regression statistical techniques.Results: Adherence to medication (HR = 0.262, 95% CI = 0.125–0.553, p < 0.001) and patient perfectionism (HR = 0.259, 95% CI = 0.017–0.624, p < 0.01) negatively predicted the initial response to treatment, whereas patient optimism (HR = 1.221, 95% CI = 1.080–1.380, p < 0.05) positively predicted it. Patient optimism (HR = 1.247, 95% CI = 1.1–1.4, p < 0.05), empathy perceived by the patient (HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1001–1002, p < 0.05), and therapeutic alliance (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1001–1.04, p < 0.05) positively predicted episode remission, while patient perfectionism (HR = 0.219, 95% CI = 0.093–0.515, p < 0.001) and low adherence to the treatment regimen (HR = 0.293, 95% CI = 0.145–0.595, p < 0.001) negatively predicted it. Finally, social support (p < 0.01) and therapeutic alliance (p < 0.05) predicted adherence to the medication regimen.Conclusions: In addition to taking the antidepressant drug, other factors including the personal interactions between the patient with their primary care physician and with their social environment significantly influenced the patients' initial response and the final rate of episode remission.

Management of first depression or generalized anxiety disorder episode in adults in primary care: A systematic metareview

General Practitioners (GPs) are the leading antidepressants prescribers in Europe and in France. Difficulties in implementing existing recommendations in daily practice have been described. The objective of this study was to elaborate two algorithms to guide GPs in the patient management for a first major depressive disorder (MDD) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) episode in primary care. PubMed, Cochrane, and ISI Web of Science were explored using mainly the following keywords: depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, antidepressive agents or antidepressant. PubMed was explored using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Grey literature was also considered through the analysis of articles references, congress publications, guidelines and clinical practice recommendations. A systematic meta-review (overview of reviews) including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and clinical practice recommendations, published from January 2002 to December 2015, was performed. The methodological and report qualities were assessed by the AGREE II, PRISMA checklist and R-AMSTAR grid. Each step was performed independently by two researchers following a process derived from the PRISMA statement. A narrative synthesis on main clinical data to collect before prescription in primary care, key information for patients, and recommended follow-up was realized. Thirty articles were included: 11 meta-analyses, 19 guidelines. For moderate to severe MDD, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) should be associated with psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy). For GAD, SSRI or CBT should be proposed if functional impairment is marked. Two algorithms to guide GPs for the management of MDD and or the management of GAD were created based on the data synthesis of this review. A GPs expert group discussed and adapted the algorithms to match with GPs expectancies. Few articles dealt specifically with primary care practice, and only one meta-analysis of clinical trial on antidepressants in primary care was found. From the best evidence-based data, we created two algorithms to guide GPs for the management of MDD and or the management of GAD. These algorithms will be implemented through a website available for GPs consultation.

Comparing watchful waiting with antidepressants for the management of subclinical depression symptoms to mild-moderate depression in primary care: a systematic review.

The benefits of watchful waiting (WW) over antidepressants (ADs) for the treatment of depression in primary care (PC) are unclear. We aimed to systematically review the evidence supporting either WW or ADs for the treatment of subclinical depressive symptoms and mild-moderate depression in a PC setting. This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (42016036345). Four electronic sources (EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge) were systematically searched from inception to November 2016 for controlled trials comparing WW and ADs in PC following established guidelines. The studies had to include adult population with new symptoms of subclinical depression or mild-moderate depression. Patients in the intervention group should receive a WW approach, while patients in the control group underwent treatment with ADs. The abstraction form included information on the setting, characteristics of the study population, total sample size, size of the control and intervention groups and date of the study. Outcome measures and variability were extracted. The scarcity of studies and the considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity discouraged us from performing a meta-analysis. Three articles were included and qualitatively synthesized. There was no evidence for the superiority of one treatment option over the other, although two of the studies suggested small differences in favour of ADs when less conservative analyses were conducted (per protocol analysis and analysis not adjusted for missingness predictors). Superiority was not demonstrated by either treatment option. More robust evidence is needed to inform recommendations for the management of depressive symptoms in PC.

Off-label indications for antidepressants in primary care: descriptive study of prescriptions from an indication based electronic prescribing system

Objective To examine off-label indications for antidepressants in primary care and determine the level of scientific support for off-label prescribing.Design Descriptive study of antidepressant prescriptions written by primary care physicians...

Unrecognised bipolar disorder among UK primary care patients prescribed antidepressants: an observational study.

Bipolar disorder is not uncommon, is associated with high disability and risk of suicide, often presents with depression, and can go unrecognised. To determine the prevalence of unrecognised bipolar disorder among those prescribed antidepressants for depressive or anxiety disorder in UK primary care; whether those with unrecognised bipolar disorder have more severe depression than those who do not; and the accuracy of a screening questionnaire for bipolar disorder, the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ), in this setting. Observational primary care study of patients on the lists of 21 general practices in West Yorkshire aged 16-40 years and prescribed antidepressant medication. Participants were recruited using primary care databases, interviewed using a diagnostic interview, and completed the screening questionnaire and rating scales of symptoms and quality of life. The prevalence of unrecognised bipolar disorder was 7.3%. Adjusting for differences between the sample and a national database gives a prevalence of 10.0%. Those with unrecognised bipolar disorder were younger and had greater lifetime depression. The predictive value of the MDQ was poor. Among people aged 16-40 years prescribed antidepressants in primary care for depression or anxiety, there is a substantial proportion with unrecognised bipolar disorder. When seeing patients with depression or anxiety disorder, particularly when they are young or not doing well, clinicians should review the life history for evidence of unrecognised bipolar disorder. Some clinicians might find the MDQ to be a useful supplement to non-standardised questioning.

Antidepressants for treatment of depression in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION Evidence for the effectiveness of drug treatment for depression in primary care settings remains limited, with little information on newer antidepressant classes. AIM To update an earlier Cochrane review on the effectiveness of antidepressants in primary care to include newer antidepressant classes, and to examine the efficacy of individual agents. METHODS Selection criteria included antidepressant studies with a randomly assigned placebo group where half or more subjects were recruited from primary care. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis (CCDAN) group searched multiple databases to identify eligible studies. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Data were analysed using Revman version 5.3.5. RESULTS In total, 17 papers and 22 comparisons were included for analysis. Significant benefits in terms of response were found for tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) with a relative risk (RR) = 1.23 (95% CI, 1.01-1.48), and serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) with a RR = 1.33 (95% CI, 1.20-1.48). Mianserin was effective for continuous outcomes. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) for TCA = 8.5; SSRI = 6.5; and venlafaxine = 6. Most studies were industry-funded and of a brief duration (≤ 8 weeks). There was evidence of publication bias. There were no studies comparing newer antidepressants against placebo. CONCLUSION Antidepressants such as TCA, SSRI, SNRI (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) and NaSSA (noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant) classes appear to be effective in primary care when compared with placebo. However, in view of the potential for publication bias and that only four studies were not funded by industry, caution is needed when considering their use in primary care.

Shared Decision Making for Antidepressants in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

For antidepressants, the translation of evidence of comparative effectiveness into practice is suboptimal. This deficit directly affects outcomes and quality of care for patients with depression. To overcome this problem, we developed the Depression Medication Choice (DMC) encounter decision aid, designed to help patients and clinicians consider the available antidepressants and the extent to which they improved depression and other issues important to patients. Estimate the effect of DMC on quality of the decision-making process and depression outcomes. We conducted a cluster randomized trial of adults with moderate to severe depression considering treatment with an antidepressant. Primary care practices in 10 rural, suburban, and urban primary care practices across Minnesota and Wisconsin were randomly allocated to treatment of depression with or without use of the DMC decision aid. Depression Medication Choice, a series of cards, each highlighting the effect of the available options on an issue of importance to patients for use during face-to-face consultations. Decision-making quality as judged by patient knowledge and involvement in decision making, patient and clinician decisional comfort (Decisional Conflict Scale) and satisfaction, encounter duration, medication adherence, depression symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9). We enrolled 117 clinicians and 301 patients (67% women; mean [SD] age, 44 [15] years; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 15 [4]) into the trial. Compared with usual care (UC), use of DMC significantly improved patients' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 75%; P = .02), knowledge (DMC, 65% vs UC, 56%; P = .03), satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], from 1.25 [P = .81] to RR, 2.4 [P = .002] depending on satisfaction domain), and involvement (DMC, 47% vs UC, 33%; P<.001). It also improved clinicians' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 68%; P < .001) and satisfaction (RR, 1.64; P = .02). There were no differences in encounter duration, medication adherence, or improvement of depression control between arms. The DMC decision aid helped primary care clinicians and patients with moderate to severe depression select antidepressants together, improving the decision-making process without extending the visit. On the other hand, DMC had no discernible effect on medication adherence or depression outcomes. By translating comparative effectiveness into patient-centered care, use of DMC improved the quality of primary care for patients with depression. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01502891.

Pharmacotherapeutic strategies for patients treated for depression in UK primary care: a database analysis

Objective:To investigate long-term patterns of antidepressant treatment in patients in primary care in the UK, and to assess their healthcare resource use and disease outcomes.Research design and methods:A retrospective longitudinal cohort study was conducted using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The study population comprised patients aged ≥18 years with depression receiving a prescription for antidepressant monotherapy between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2011 with no antidepressants within the preceding 6 months. Recovery was defined by timing of antidepressant prescriptions (≥6 months without treatment). Treatment lines and strategies (switching, combining, augmenting and resuming medication) were analyzed. Healthcare resource use for the different treatment strategies and periods of no therapy was assessed.Results:Data from 123,662 patients (287,564 treatment lines) were analyzed. Switching and resumption of treatment were more frequent than other strategies. Recovery was highest with first-line monotherapy (45% of patients), while as a second-line strategy switching was more successful (43%) than combination or augmentation. In subsequent lines of treatment, switching was associated with successively lower rates of recovery (31% in the third line and 24% from the fourth line onwards). Similar rates were observed for resumption. Healthcare resource use was greater during antidepressant use than treatment-free periods. Augmentation was associated with the highest proportions of patients with a psychiatrist referral, psychologist referral and psychiatric hospitalization.Conclusions:This study provides extensive real-world information on the prescribing patterns and treatment outcomes for a large cohort of patients treated for depression with antidepressants in primary care. Switching is more frequently used than augmentation or combination treatment, with decreasing effectiveness across successive lines. Key limitations of the study were: (i) risk of selection bias due to the use of inclusion criteria based on depression diagnoses recorded by the practitioner; and (ii) reliance on prescribing patterns as proxies for clinical outcomes, such as recovery.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a community pharmacist intervention in patients with depression (PRODEFAR study)

Introduction: Non-adherence to antidepressants is common and limits the effectiveness of antidepressants. Pharmacists are in an ideal position to help patients cope with antidepressant treatment and, as experts in pharmacotherapy, can provide complementary skills to other health professionals. Pharmacists' interventions are effective in the improvement of adherence to antidepressants. However, little is known about the efficiency of such interventions. The study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a community pharmacist intervention (CPI) in comparison with usual care (UC) in depressed patients initiating treatment with antidepressants in primary care. Methods: The economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial with 6 months follow-up. Patients were recruited by general practitioners and randomized to CPI and UC. The intervention consisted of an educational programme focused on improving knowledge about medication, making patients aware of the importance of compliance, reducing stigma, reassuring World Congress on Integrated Care 2014, Sydney, November 23-26, 2014. International Journal of Integrated Care – Volume 14, 8 December – URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-116658– http://www.ijic.org/ patients about side-effects and stressing the importance of carrying out general practitioners' advice. Adherence to antidepressants, clinical symptoms, Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs), use of healthcare services and productivity losses were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Results: A total of 179 patients were randomized to UC (92) and CPI (87). Although overall costs were higher in the CPI group than in UC patients, there were no significant differences between groups at baseline. From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was for the CPI compared with UC was €9,872 per extra QALY and €1,866 for extra adherent patient. In terms of remission of depressive symptoms, the UC dominated the CPI. If willingness to pay (WTP) is €30,000 per extra adherent patient, remission of symptoms or QALYs, the probability of the CPI being cost-effective was 0.71, 0.46 and 0.75, respectively from the societal perspective. From a healthcare perspective, the probability of the CPI being cost-effective in terms of adherence, QALYs and remission was of 0.71, 0.76 and 0.46, respectively, if WTP is €30,000. Discussion and conclusions: A low intensity CPI addressed to depressed patients initiating antidepressant treatment showed a probability of being cost-effective of 0.71 and 0.75 in terms of improvement of adherence and QALYs, respectively, when compared to IC. Regular implementation of the CPI is not recommended. Sample size calculation was based on the effectiveness analysis and the study could have been underpowered to detect differences. Only 74% of the patients in the CPI group received at least one intervention in the pharmacy and this may have limited its impact. A 6-month follow-up is a short period to evaluate long term costs and effects of the intervention. Future research needs to evaluate more complex and intensive pharmacist interventions in community pharmacy. It will be necessary to improve the collaborative relationship between the pharmacist and the practitioner, and the integration of the pharmacist into the primary care team. Also needed will be development of strategies that facilitate the attachment of the patient to the pharmacy and the establishment of a relationship between the pharmacist and the patient.

Maintenance use of antidepressants in Dutch general practice: non-guideline concordant.

BackgroundThere is hardly evidence on maintenance treatment with antidepressants in primary care. Nevertheless, depression guidelines recommend maintenance treatment i.e. treatment to prevent recurrences, in patients with high risk of recurrence, and many patients use maintenance treatment with antidepressants. This study explores the characteristics of patients on maintenance treatment with antidepressants in general practice, and compares these characteristics with guideline recommendations for maintenance treatment.MethodsWe used data (baseline, two-year and four-year follow-up) of primary care respondents with remitted depressive disorder (≥6 months) from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (n = 776). Maintenance treatment was defined as the use of an antidepressant for ≥12 months. Multilevel logistic regression was used to describe the association between sociodemographic, clinical and care characteristics and use of maintenance treatment with antidepressants.ResultsOlder patients, patients with a lower education, those using benzodiazepines or receiving psychological/psychiatric care and patients with a concurrent history of a dysthymic or anxiety disorder more often received maintenance treatment with antidepressants.LimitationsMeasurements were not made at the start of an episode, but at predetermined points in time. Diagnoses were based on interview (CIDI) data and could therefore in some cases have been different from the GP diagnosis.ConclusionsSince patients with chronic or recurrent depression do not use maintenance treatment with antidepressants more often, characteristics of patients on maintenance treatment do not fully correspond with guideline recommendations. However, patients on maintenance treatment appear to be those with more severe disorder and/or more comorbidity.

Antidepressants in primary care: patients&amp;rsquo; experiences, perceptions, self-efficacy beliefs, and nonadherence

PurposePatient adherence to antidepressants is poor. However, this is rather unsurprising, given the equivocal efficacy, side effects, and practical problems of antidepressants. The aim of this study was to examine a wide array of patient experiences and perceptions regarding the efficacy, side effects, and practical problems of antidepressants, as well as their associations with nonadherence, and whether patients’ perceived self-efficacy moderated these associations.Patients and methodsExperiences and perceptions of 225 patients, recruited through community pharmacies, were efficiently assessed with the Tailored Medicine Inventory. Nonadherence was assessed through self-report and pharmacy refill data.ResultsMany patients were not convinced of the efficacy, thought the efficacy to be limited or did not believe antidepressants to prevent relapse, were worried about or had experienced one or more side effects, and/or had experienced one or more practical problems regarding information, intake, and packaging. Being convinced of efficacy was associated with lower intentional nonadherence (odds ratio [OR] 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8–0.96). A higher number of practical problems experienced was associated with increased unintentional nonadherence (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.7). Higher perceived self-efficacy regarding taking antidepressants was associated with lower unintentional nonadherence (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5–0.9). Perceived self-efficacy did not moderate associations of patient experiences and perceptions with nonadherence.ConclusionAssessing a wide array of patients’ experiences and perceptions regarding the efficacy, side effects, and practical problems of antidepressants contributes to better understanding of nonadherence to antidepressants. Guiding physician–patient conversations by patients’ experiences and perceptions may reduce both unintentional and intentional nonadherence. Also, it may give rise to considerations of prudent discontinuation, eg, when patients are not convinced of the efficacy.

The Impact of Public Information and FDA Issued Warnings on the Use of Antidepressants in Primary Care

Context: This article explores the relative impact of marketing information and FDA regulatory actions in the market for prescription drugs. We examine how direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) and FDA issued precautions and boxed warnings together affect young patients' visits with physicians and active prescriptions for anti-depressants. Methods: We aggregate 10 years (1998-2006) of detailed electronic medical record data on 9344 patients (254,810 patient-months) between the ages of 5 and 25, to the physician practice level. We then estimate monthly visit rates and active prescription rates using random and fixed effects models on the resulting unbalanced panel of practice months (N=1702). Findings: Results indicate that DTCA, FDA mandated changes to drug labels and media coverage affects the flow of patients into the physician practice and the rate of prescribing antidepressants. The FDA-issued boxed warning had a statistically significant effect only on prescribing rates for the under-18 year old population and only for the drugs explicitly mentioned in the boxed warning announcement. Conclusions: Since the policy goal of the boxed warning was to impact physician choices for all antidepressants our findings suggest there is room for improvement in the way boxed warnings – or indeed any FDA warning information – are released.

A practical approach to prescribing antidepressants

Although antidepressant drugs do not differ much in their efficacy rates, the particular characteristics of one drug may make it a better choice in a given patient. This article provides insight into the art of prescribing antidepressants in primary care, with recommendations for prescribing for patients with chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, anxiety, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, severe insomnia, old age, diabetes, and heart problems.