Article

Comparative efficacy of two interventions to discontinue long-term benzodiazepine use: cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care.

The British journal of psychiatry: the journal of mental science (Impact Factor: 6.62). 02/2014; DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.134650
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Benzodiazepines are extensively used in primary care, but their long-term use is associated with adverse health outcomes and dependence.
To analyse the efficacy of two structured interventions in primary care to enable patients to discontinue long-term benzodiazepine use.
A multicentre three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted, with randomisation at general practitioner level (trial registration ISRCTN13024375). A total of 532 patients taking benzodiazepines for at least 6 months participated. After all patients were included, general practitioners were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to usual care, a structured intervention with follow-up visits (SIF) or a structured intervention with written instructions (SIW). The primary end-point was the last month self-declared benzodiazepine discontinuation confirmed by prescription claims at 12 months.
At 12 months, 76 of 168 (45%) patients in the SIW group and 86 of 191 (45%) in the SIF group had discontinued benzodiazepine use compared with 26 of 173 (15%) in the control group. After adjusting by cluster, the relative risks for benzodiazepine discontinuation were 3.01 (95% CI 2.03-4.46, P<0.0001) in the SIW and 3.00 (95% CI 2.04-4.40, P<0.0001) in the SIF group. The most frequently reported withdrawal symptoms were insomnia, anxiety and irritability.
Both interventions led to significant reductions in long-term benzodiazepine use in patients without severe comorbidity. A structured intervention with a written individualised stepped-dose reduction is less time-consuming and as effective in primary care as a more complex intervention involving follow-up visits.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
129 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To quantify and compare potential benefits (subjective reports of sleep variables) and risks (adverse events and morning-after psychomotor impairment) of short term treatment with sedative hypnotics in older people with insomnia. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane clinical trials database, PubMed, and PsychLit, 1966 to 2003; bibliographies of published reviews and meta-analyses; manufacturers of newer sedative hypnotics (zaleplon, zolpidem, zopiclone) regarding unpublished studies. Randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for insomnia for at least five consecutive nights in people aged 60 or over with insomnia and otherwise free of psychiatric or psychological disorders. 24 studies (involving 2417 participants) with extractable data met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Sleep quality improved (effect size 0.14, P < 0.05), total sleep time increased (mean 25.2 minutes, P < 0.001), and the number of night time awakenings decreased (0.63, P < 0.001) with sedative use compared with placebo. Adverse events were more common with sedatives than with placebo: adverse cognitive events were 4.78 times more common (95% confidence interval 1.47 to 15.47, P < 0.01); adverse psychomotor events were 2.61 times more common (1.12 to 6.09, P > 0.05), and reports of daytime fatigue were 3.82 times more common (1.88 to 7.80, P < 0.001) in people using any sedative compared with placebo. Improvements in sleep with sedative use are statistically significant, but the magnitude of effect is small. The increased risk of adverse events is statistically significant and potentially clinically relevant in older people at risk of falls and cognitive impairment. In people over 60, the benefits of these drugs may not justify the increased risk, particularly if the patient has additional risk factors for cognitive or psychomotor adverse events.
    BMJ (online) 11/2005; 331(7526):1169. · 16.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of psychotropic medications and its association with sleep and psychiatric and physical illnesses were studied in the general population. A cross-sectional telephone survey was carried out using the Sleep-EVAL knowledge-base system. A representative sample of the noninstitutionalized general populations of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, aged 15 years or over, was interviewed (N = 18,679; participation rate: 78.8%; target population: 204,605,391 inhabitants). Questions were asked about psychotropic medication intake (name of medication, indication, dosage, duration of intake, prescriber), sociodemographics, physical illnesses, and DSM-IV mental disorders. At the time of the interview, 6.4% of the subjects took a psychotropic medication. Anxiolytics were reported by 4.3% of the sample, hypnotics by 1.5%, antidepressants by 1.0%, and neuroleptics and other psychotropics by less than 1.0%. Hypnotics and anxiolytics were mostly used as a sleep disorder treatment. Antidepressants were taken appropriately for a depressive illness in only 44.1% of cases. Low doses of hypnotics and anxiolytics were found in about 10% of cases and low doses of antidepressants in 31.7% of cases. Subjects with a psychiatric disorder received a psychotropic treatment only infrequently (between 10% to 40.4%, depending on the disorder). All psychiatric disorders, including mood disorders, were treated mainly with an anxiolytic. A concomitant physical illness increased the likelihood of using a psychotropic treatment and was a strong predictor of adequate psychotropic dosage. Psychiatric pathology and sleep disorders remained mostly untreated or inadequately managed in the general population. Depression is underdiagnosed by the physicians and is treated with antidepressant in only 7% of cases. By contrast, anxiolytics are extensively prescribed, especially in France and Italy. The co-occurrence of organic and psychiatry disorders increases the frequency of medical consultations and the likelihood of being given a prescription for the mental disorder.
    The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 10/2002; 63(9):817-25. · 5.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Benzodiazepine withdrawal programmes have never been experimentally compared with a nonintervention control condition. To evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of tapering off long-term benzodiazepine use in general practice, and to evaluate the value of additional group cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). A 3-month randomised, 3-month controlled trial was conducted in which 180 people attempting to discontinue long-term benzodiazepine use were assigned to tapering off plus group CBT, tapering off alone or usual care. Tapering off led to a significantly higher proportion of successful discontinuations than usual care (62% nu. 21%). Adding group CBT did not increase the success rate (58% v. 62%). Neither successful discontinuation nor intervention type affected psychological functioning. Both tapering strategies showed good feasibilityin general practice. Tapering off is a feasible and effective way of discontinuing long-term benzodiazepine use in general practice. The addition of group CBT is of limited value.
    The British Journal of Psychiatry 07/2003; 182:498-504. · 7.34 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
48 Downloads
Available from
Jun 1, 2014