RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of collaborative care compared to Primary Care Physician's (PCP's) usual care in the treatment of depression, focusing on European countries. METHODS: A systematic review of English and non-English articles, from inception to March 2014, was performed using database PubMed, British Nursing Index and Archive, Ovid Medline (R), PsychINFO, Books@Ovid, PsycARTICLES Full Text, EMBASE Classic+Embase, DARE (Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness) and the Cochrane Library electronic database. Search term included depression, collaborative care, physician family and allied health professional. RCTs comparing collaborative care to usual care for depression in primary care were included. Titles and abstracts were independently examined by two reviewers, who extracted from the included trials information on participants' characteristics, type of intervention, features of collaborative care and type of outcome measure. RESULTS: The 17 papers included, regarding 15 RCTs, involved 3240 participants. Primary analyses showed that collaborative care models were associated with greater improvement in depression outcomes in the short term, within 3 months (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI=-0.33; -0.05; p=0.006), medium term, between 4 and 11 months (SMD -0.24, 95% CI=-0.39; -0.09; p=0.001) and medium-long term, from 12 months and over (SMD -0.21, 95% CI=-0.37; -0.04; p=0.01), compared to usual care. CONCLUSIONS: The present review, specifically focusing on European countries, shows that collaborative care is more effective than treatment as usual in improving depression outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Depresión/terapia , Trastorno Depresivo/terapia , Grupo de Atención al Paciente , Atención Primaria de Salud , Adulto , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Atención Primaria de Salud/métodos , Atención Primaria de Salud/normas , Atención Primaria de Salud/tendencias , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Lack of insight is predominant in schizophrenia though the causes are still unclear. The present study was carried on to investigate the effect of three Second Generation Antipsychotics (SGAs) and Haloperidol on insight and the associations among different clusters of symptoms and insight. Fifty-five patients have been recruited at the moment of pharmacological switch needed for psychotic exacerbation, from other antipsychotic drugs to Olanzapine, Aripiprazole, Ziprasidone and Haloperidol. Patients have been followed for 6 months and evaluated at baseline, after 3 months and after 6 months. Regarding the insight improvement, all SGAs resulted more effective than Haloperidol, while no difference was detected among different SGAs. Concerning psychopathology, all SGAs showed a better efficacy than Haloperidol, positive symptoms apart. All SGAs showed a similar efficacy on all domains, except for negative symptoms which resulted less responsive to ziprasidone and haloperidol. An association between improvement of insight and psychopathology was detected. Furthermore, insight appears to be related to psychopathology severity, particularly to negative symptoms. However, the observed different effectiveness of Ziprasidone on negative symptoms and insight suggests that these psychopathological features may be not strictly related and, thus, they may be sustained by different psychopathological processes.
Asunto(s)
Antipsicóticos/uso terapéutico , Concienciación/efectos de los fármacos , Trastornos Psicóticos/tratamiento farmacológico , Esquizofrenia/tratamiento farmacológico , Psicología del Esquizofrénico , Adulto , Antipsicóticos/farmacología , Aripiprazol , Benzodiazepinas/farmacología , Benzodiazepinas/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Haloperidol/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Olanzapina , Piperazinas/farmacología , Piperazinas/uso terapéutico , Trastornos Psicóticos/psicología , Quinolonas/farmacología , Quinolonas/uso terapéutico , Tiazoles/farmacología , Tiazoles/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
Objective. To describe the prevalence of patients who screen positive for bipolar disorder (BD) symptoms in primary care comparing two screening instruments: Mood Disorders Questionnaire (MDQ) and Hypomania Checklist (HCL-32). Participants. Adult patients presenting to their primary care practitioners for any cause and reporting current depression symptoms or a depressive episode in the last 6 months. Methods. Subjects completed MDQ and HCL-32, and clinical diagnosis was assessed by a psychiatrist following DSM-IV criteria. Depressive symptoms were evaluated in a subgroup with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Results. A total of 94 patients were approached to participate and 93 completed the survey. Among these, 8.9% screened positive with MDQ and 43.0% with HCL-32. MDQ positive had more likely features associated with BD: panic disorder and smoking habit (P < .05). The best test accuracy was performed by cut-off 5 for MDQ (sensitivity = .91; specificity = .67) and 15 for HCL-32 (sensitivity = .64; specificity = .57). Higher total score of PHQ-9 was related to higher total scores at the screening tests (P < .001). Conclusion. There is a significant prevalence of bipolar symptoms in primary care depressed patients. MDQ seems to have better accuracy and feasibility than HCL-32, features that fit well in the busy setting of primary care.
RESUMEN
TRIAL DESIGN: This was a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 227 patients ≥18 years old with a new onset of depressive symptoms who screened positive on the first two items of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) were recruited by primary care physicians (PCPs) of eight health districts of three Italian regions from September 2009 to June 2011. INTERVENTION: PCPs of the intervention group received a specific collaborative care program including 2 days of intensive training, implementation of a stepped care protocol, depression management toolkit and scheduled meetings with a dedicated consultant psychiatrist. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine whether a collaborative care program for depression management in primary care leads to higher remission rate than usual PCP care. OUTCOMES: Outcome was clinical remission as expressed on PHQ-9 <5 at 3 months. RANDOMIZATION: An independent researcher used computer-generated randomization to assign involved primary care groups to the two alternative arms. BLINDING: PCPs and research personnel were not blinded. RESULTS: The 223 PCPs enrolled recruited 227 patients (128 in collaborative care arm, 99 in the usual care arm). At 3 months (n=210), the proportion of patients who achieved remission was higher, though the difference was not statistically significant, in the collaborative care group. The effect size was of 0.11. When considering only patients with minor/major depression, collaborative care appeared to be more effective than usual care (P=.015). CONCLUSIONS: The present intervention for managing depression in primary care, designed to be applicable to the Italian context, appears to be effective and feasible.