Article

Evidence of prescription of antidepressants for non-psychiatric conditions in primary care: an analysis of guidelines and systematic reviews

BMC Family Practice (Impact Factor: 1.74). 05/2013; 14(1):55. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-14-55
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background
Antidepressants (ADs) are commonly prescribed in primary care and are mostly indicated for depression. According to the literature, they are now more frequently prescribed for health conditions other than psychiatric ones. Due to their many indications in a wide range of medical fields, assessing the appropriateness of AD prescription seems to be a challenge for GPs. The aim of this study was to review evidence from guidelines for antidepressant prescription for non-psychiatric conditions in Primary Care (PC) settings.

Methods
Data were retrieved from French, English and US guideline databases. Guidelines or reviews were eligible if keywords regarding 44 non-psychiatric conditions related to GPs’ prescription of ADs were encountered. After excluding psychiatric and non-primary care conditions, the guidelines were checked for keywords related to AD use. The latest updated version of the guidelines was kept. Recent data was searched in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and in PubMed for updated reviews and randomized control trials (RCTs).

Results
Seventy-eight documents were retrieved and were used to assess the level of evidence of a potential benefit to prescribing an AD. For 15 conditions, there was a consensus that prescribing an AD was beneficial. For 5 others, ADs were seen as potentially beneficial. No proof of benefit was found for 15 conditions and proof of no benefit was found for the last 9. There were higher levels of evidence for pain conditions, (neuropathic pain, diabetic painful neuropathy, central neuropathic pain, migraine, tension-type headaches, and fibromyalgia) incontinence and irritable bowel syndrome. There were difficulties in summarizing the data, due to a lack of information on the level of evidence, and due to variations in efficacy between and among the various classes of ADs.

Conclusions
Prescription of ADs was found to be beneficial for many non-psychiatric health conditions regularly encountered in PC settings. On the whole, the guidelines were heterogeneous, seemingly due to a lack of trials assessing the role of ADs in treatment strategies.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Paul Van Royen, Jul 03, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
87 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe antidepressant (AD) use in the Emilia-Romagna Region (Italy) and to evaluate adherence to treatment with selective serotonin receptor inhibitors or selective noradrenaline receptor inhibitors (SSRI-SNRI). Reimbursed prescriptions of AD were retrieved from the Emilia-Romagna Regional Health Authority Database. The overall AD consumption from the 2006-2011 period was expressed in terms of prevalence and amount of use. Adherence to treatment was assessed in a cohort of patients who received SSRI-SNRI, and was followed throughout a 6-month period from the start of each treatment episode. Adherence was considered according to three parameters: duration of treatment ≥ 120 days, prescription coverage ≥ 80 %, and gaps between prescriptions < 3 months. Determinants of non-adherent regimen, including sociodemographic and clinical variables, were identified by multivariate logistic regression by calculating adjusted Odds Ratio (adjOR) and the relevant 95 % confidence interval (95CI). From 2006 to 2011, the prevalence of use of AD increased by 5 % (from 86 to 90 per 1,000 inhabitants) and the amount of antidepressant consumption increased by 20 % (from 43 to 51 defined daily dose per thousand inhabitants per day [DDD/TID]), with a 14 % rise in the intensity of drug use (from 182 to 208 DDD per patient). Out of 347,615 SSRI-SNRI treatment episodes, only 23.8 % were adherent. Comorbidity (adjOR:0.69; 95CI:0.67-0.72) and recurrence of AD treatment in the previous year (0.91; 0.89-0.92) were associated with better adherence. Moreover, patients treated with duloxetine (0.58; 0.55-0.60), escitalopram (0.64; 0.62-0.66) or sertraline (0.65; 0.64-0.67) showed better adherence in comparison with paroxetine. Clinical variables resulting in improved adherence seem to identify patients with more severe disorders and who actually need a pharmacological approach, whereas differences in adherence among ADs could in part be caused by channeling and sponsorship bias. Initiatives addressed at improving cooperation between primary care and psychiatrists could decrease AD prescription for cases of sub-threshold or mild depression that easily drop out because of rapid symptom relief or side effects.
    European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 08/2013; 69(12). DOI:10.1007/s00228-013-1567-8 · 2.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are multiple factors that impede the implementation of standards into the behavioral health (BH) treatment and disability processes. The combination of physical and psychological conditions as well as the influence of psychosocial issues has consistently been identified as having negative effects on treatment and treatment outcomes. Further, the wide-spread lack of standardization causes a multitude of problems throughout both BH processes. The focus of this first article in a three-part series will examine the explosion of behavioral health claims and the major factors, such as comorbid physical conditions and psychosocial issues, associated with these types of claims. In addition, the overarching theme of lack of standardization will begin to be explored in regard to the problematic definition of disability, communication difficulties between treating professionals and disability insurers and agencies as well as the introduction of bias into the BH treatment and disability processes.
    Psychological Injury and Law 09/2013; 6(3):183-195. DOI:10.1007/s12207-013-9163-x
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little research has been conducted on antidepressants (ADs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) despite their widespread use and evidence that they may improve immunoregulatory activity. The present study aimed 1) To explore the use and type(s) of ADs currently prescribed to people living with IBD and to collect evidence with respect to any observed effect of ADs on the course of IBD, and 2) To explore experiences and opinions regarding the effect of ADs on IBD course and attitudes towards future trials with ADs. A cross-sectional exploratory Australia-wide online survey was conducted. Numerical results of the survey were summarised using descriptive statistics and open-ended questions using a simple content analysis. Overall, 98 IBD respondents participated in the survey, 50% with Crohn's disease, and 79% females. Sixty five (66%) participants reported current and 46 (47%) reported past AD use. Of the current AD users, 51 (79%) reported that the symptoms ADs were prescribed for improved. Psychological well-being improved in 87% of participants. The majority of respondents observed no change in IBD activity while on ADs, however, 16 (25%) believed that ADs improved their IBD. Most (84%) respondents would recommend ADs to other people living with IBD, and 81% reported willingness to participate in clinical trials with ADs. Future clinical trials on ADs are warranted and likely to be accepted by people living with IBD in need of mental health care; however, it is yet unknown whether ADs will have a specific impact on long-term IBD activity.
    Journal of Crohn s and Colitis 09/2013; 8(4). DOI:10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.002 · 3.56 Impact Factor