Article

The public health impact of antidepressants: An instrumental variable analysis

Department of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Journal of Affective Disorders (Impact Factor: 3.71). 06/2011; 134(1-3):188-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2011.05.037
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There has been a marked increase in antidepressant medication prescription and use over the past three decades with unclear effects on the mental health status of the population. This study examined the impact of expansion of antidepressant use on prevalence and characteristics of depression and suicidal ideations in the community.
Instrumental variable models were used to assess the impact of antidepressant treatments on the prevalence of depressive episodes, mixed anxiety and depression states and suicidal ideations in 22,845 participants of the 1993, 2000 and 2007 National surveys of psychiatric morbidity of Great Britain who were between 16 and 64 years of age.
Increased prevalence of antidepressant treatment did not impact the prevalence of depressive episodes or mixed anxiety and depression states. However, antidepressant treatment was associated with decreased prevalence of severe and, to a lesser extent, mild depressive episodes and suicidal ideations and a corresponding increase in prevalence of moderate depressive episodes.
The data were cross-sectional and based on self-report of symptoms in the past month and current medication use with no information on dose and duration of medication treatment.
Expansion of antidepressant treatments in recent years has not changed the community prevalence of depression overall, but it has reduced the prevalence of more severe depression and suicidal ideations. The findings call for better targeting and more judicious use of antidepressants in cases of more severe depressive episodes which are more likely to respond to such treatments.

0 Followers
 · 
97 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Observational epidemiological studies are increasingly used in pharmaceutical research to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medicines. Such studies can complement findings from randomized clinical trials by involving larger and more generalizable patient populations by accruing greater durations of follow-up and by representing what happens more typically in the clinical setting. However, the interpretation of exposure effects in observational studies is almost always complicated by non-random exposure allocation, which can result in confounding and potentially lead to misleading conclusions. Confounding occurs when an extraneous factor, related to both the exposure and the outcome of interest, partly or entirely explains the relationship observed between the study exposure and the outcome. Although randomization can eliminate confounding by distributing all such extraneous factors equally across the levels of a given exposure, methods for dealing with confounding in observational studies include a careful choice of study design and the possible use of advanced analytical methods. The aim of this paper is to introduce some of the approaches that can be used to help minimize the impact of confounding in observational research to the reader working in the pharmaceutical industry.
    Pharmaceutical Statistics 11/2011; 10(6):539-47. DOI:10.1002/pst.528 · 1.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Depression is more frequent in socioeconomically disadvantaged than affluent neighbourhoods, but this association may be due to confounding. This study aimed to determine the independent association between socioeconomic disadvantage and depression. We recruited 21,417 older adults via their general practitioners (GPs) and used the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to assess clinically significant depression (PHQ-9≥10) and major depressive symptoms. We divided the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage into quintiles. Other measures included age, gender, place of birth, marital status, physical activity, smoking, alcohol use, height and weight, living arrangements, early life adversity, financial strain, number of medical conditions, and education of treating GPs about depression and self-harm behaviour. After 2 years participants completed the PHQ-9 and reported their use of antidepressants and health services. Depression affected 6% and 10% of participants in the least and the most disadvantaged quintiles. The proportion of participants with major depressive symptoms was 2% and 4%. The adjusted odds of depression and major depression were 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 95%CI=1.1-1.6) and 1.8 (95%CI=1.3-2.5) for the most disadvantaged. The adjusted odds of persistent major depression were 2.4 (95%CI=1.3-4.5) for the most disadvantaged group. There was no association between disadvantage and service use. Antidepressant use was greatest in the most disadvantaged groups. The higher prevalence and persistence of depression amongst disadvantaged older adults cannot be easily explained by confounding. Management of depression in disadvantaged areas may need to extend beyond traditional medical and psychological approaches.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 02/2012; 138(3):322-31. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2012.01.021 · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To monitor changes in psychological distress in Australia over a 16-year period during which the availability of mental health services was increasing. Data on psychological distress using the 4-NS scale were analysed from national surveys of adults carried out in 1995, 2003-04 and 2011. No change in psychological distress was found. The data show no improvement in adult mental health during a period when the availability of pharmacological, psychological and population interventions increased. Regular population monitoring of mental health is needed in the future in order to identify emerging needs and to evaluate the impact of service improvements and preventive programmes.
    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 04/2012; 46(4):352-6. DOI:10.1177/0004867411428017 · 3.77 Impact Factor