Heterogeneity in Antidepressant Treatment and Major Depressive Disorder Outcomes Among Clinicians.

Importance: While abundant work has examined patient-level differences in antidepressant treatment outcomes, little is known about the extent of clinician-level differences. Understanding these differences may be important in the development of risk models, precision treatment strategies, and more efficient systems of care. Objective: To characterize differences between outpatient clinicians in treatment selection and outcomes for their patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder across academic medical centers, community hospitals, and affiliated clinics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data derived from electronic health records at 2 large academic medical centers and 6 community hospitals, and their affiliated outpatient networks, in eastern Massachusetts. Participants were deidentified clinicians who billed at least 10 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) or Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnoses of major depressive disorder per year between 2008 and 2022. Data analysis occurred between September 2023 and January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Heterogeneity of prescribing, defined as the number of distinct antidepressants accounting for 75% of prescriptions by a given clinician; proportion of patients who did not return for follow-up after an index prescription; and proportion of patients receiving stable, ongoing antidepressant treatment. Results: Among 11 934 clinicians treating major depressive disorder, unsupervised learning identified 10 distinct clusters on the basis of ICD codes, corresponding to outpatient psychiatry as well as oncology, obstetrics, and primary care. Between these clusters, substantial variability was identified in the proportion of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants prescribed, as well as in the number of distinct antidepressants prescribed. Variability was also detected between clinician clusters in loss to follow-up and achievement of stable treatment, with the former ranging from 27% to 69% and the latter from 22% to 42%. Clinician clusters were significantly associated with treatment outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Groups of clinicians treating individuals diagnosed with major depressive disorder exhibit marked differences in prescribing patterns as well as longitudinal patient outcomes defined by electronic health records. Incorporating these group identifiers yielded similar prediction to more complex models incorporating individual codes, suggesting the importance of considering treatment context in efforts at risk stratification.

Identifying data-driven subtypes of major depressive disorder with electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce the heterogeneity of major depressive disorder (MDD) by identifying subtypes have not yet facilitated treatment personalization or investigation of biology, so novel approaches merit consideration. METHODS: We utilized electronic health records drawn from 2 academic medical centers and affiliated health systems in Massachusetts to identify data-driven subtypes of MDD, characterizing sociodemographic features, comorbid diagnoses, and treatment patterns. We applied Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to summarize diagnostic codes followed by agglomerative clustering to define patient subgroups. RESULTS: Among 136,371 patients (95,034 women [70 %]; 41,337 men [30 %]; mean [SD] age, 47.0 [14.0] years), the 15 putative MDD subtypes were characterized by comorbidities and distinct patterns in medication use. There was substantial variation in rates of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) use (from a low of 62 % to a high of 78 %) and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) use (from 4 % to 21 %). LIMITATIONS: Electronic health records lack reliable symptom-level data, so we cannot examine the extent to which subtypes might differ in clinical presentation or symptom dimensions. CONCLUSION: These data-driven subtypes, drawing on representative clinical cohorts, merit further investigation for their utility in identifying more homogeneous patient populations for basic as well as clinical investigation.