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.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:There is emerging concern that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may be associated with an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, and that this risk may be further increased by concurrent use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) medications. Previous reviews of a relatively small number of studies have reported a substantial risk of upper GI bleeding with SSRIs; however, more recent studies have produced variable results. The objective of this study was to obtain a more precise estimate of the risk of upper GI bleeding with SSRIs, with or without concurrent NSAID use.METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (through April 2013), and US and European conference proceedings were searched. Controlled trials, cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies that reported the incidence of upper GI bleeding in adults on SSRIs with or without concurrent NSAID use, compared with placebo or no treatment were included. Data were extracted independently by two authors. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain odds ratio (OR) of the risk of upper GI bleeding with SSRIs +/- NSAID, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The main outcome and measure of the study was the risk of upper GI bleeding with SSRIs compared with placebo or no treatment.RESULTS:Fifteen case-control studies (including 393,268 participants) and four cohort studies were included in the analysis. There was an increased risk of upper GI bleeding with SSRI medications in the case-control studies (OR=1.66, 95% CI=1.44,1.92) and cohort studies (OR=1.68, 95% CI=1.13,2.50). The number needed to harm for upper GI bleeding with SSRI treatment in a low-risk population was 3,177, and in a high-risk population it was 881. The risk of upper GI bleeding was further increased with the use of both SSRI and NSAID medications (OR=4.25, 95% CI=2.82,6.42).CONCLUSIONS:SSRI medications are associated with a modest increase in the risk of upper GI bleeding, which is lower than has previously been estimated. This risk is significantly elevated when SSRI medications are used in combination with NSAIDs, and physicians prescribing these medications together should exercise caution and discuss this risk with patients.Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 29 April 2014; doi:10.1038/ajg.2014.82.
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology 04/2014; · 9.21 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.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) are increasingly used in the provision of primary care and have been compiled into databases which can be utilized for surveillance, research and informing practice. The primary purpose of these records is for the provision of individual patient care; validation and examination of underlying limitations is crucial for use for research and data quality improvement. This study examines and describes the validity of chronic disease case definition algorithms and factors affecting data quality in a primary care EMR database.MethodsA retrospective chart audit of an age stratified random sample was used to validate and examine diagnostic algorithms applied to EMR data from the Manitoba Primary Care Research Network (MaPCReN), part of the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN). The presence of diabetes, hypertension, depression, osteoarthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was determined by review of the medical record and compared to algorithm identified cases to identify discrepancies and describe the underlying contributing factors.ResultsThe algorithm for diabetes had high sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) with all scores being over 90%. Specificities of the algorithms were greater than 90% for all conditions except for hypertension at 79.2%. The largest deficits in algorithm performance included poor PPV for COPD at 36.7% and limited sensitivity for COPD, depression and osteoarthritis at 72.0%, 73.3% and 63.2% respectively. Main sources of discrepancy included missing coding, alternative coding, inappropriate diagnosis detection based on medications used for alternate indications, inappropriate exclusion due to comorbidity and loss of data.Conclusions Comparison to medical chart review shows that at MaPCReN the CPCSSN case finding algorithms are valid with a few limitations. This study provides the basis for the validated data to be utilized for research and informs users of its limitations. Analysis of underlying discrepancies provides the ability to improve algorithm performance and facilitate improved data quality.
    BMC Family Practice 02/2015; 16(1):11. · 1.74 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
May 20, 2014