Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Medication reviews in primary care provide an opportunity to review and discuss the safety and appropriateness of a person's medicines. However, there is limited evidence about access to and the impact of routine medication reviews for older adults in the general population, particularly in the UK. We aimed to quantify the proportion of people aged 65 years and over with a medication review recorded in 2019 and describe changes in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. METHODS: We used anonymised primary care electronic health records from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) to define a population of people aged 65 years or over in 2019. We counted people with a medication review record in 2019 and used Cox regression to estimate associations between demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and prescribed medicines and having a medication review. We used linear regression to compare the number of medicines prescribed as repeat prescriptions in the three months before and after a medication review. Specifically, we compared the 'prescription count' - the maximum number of different medicines with overlapping prescriptions people had in each period. RESULTS: Of 591,726 people prescribed one or more medicines at baseline, 305,526 (51.6%) had a recorded medication review in 2019. Living in a care home (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.40-1.62), medication review in the previous year (1.83, 1.69-1.98), and baseline prescription count (e.g. 5-9 vs 1 medicine 1.41, 1.37-1.46) were strongly associated with having a medication review in 2019. Overall, the prescription count tended to increase after a review (mean change 0.13 medicines, 95% CI 0.12-0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Although medication reviews were commonly recorded for people aged 65 years or over, there was little change overall in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. This study did not examine whether the prescriptions were appropriate or other metrics, such as dose or medicine changes within the same class. However, by examining the impact of medication reviews before the introduction of structured medication review requirements in England in 2020, it provides a useful benchmark which these new reviews can be compared with.

The risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in people prescribed mirtazapine: an active comparator cohort study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported an increased risk of mortality among people prescribed mirtazapine compared to other antidepressants. The study aimed to compare all-cause and cause-specific mortality between adults prescribed mirtazapine or other second-line antidepressants. METHODS: This cohort study used English primary care electronic medical records, hospital admission records, and mortality data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), for the period 01 January 2005 to 30 November 2018. It included people aged 18-99 years with depression first prescribed a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and then prescribed mirtazapine (5081), a different SSRI (15,032), amitriptyline (3905), or venlafaxine (1580). Follow-up was from starting to stopping the second antidepressant, with a 6-month wash-out window, censoring at the end of CPRD follow-up or 30 November 2018. Age-sex standardised rates of all-cause mortality and death due to circulatory system disease, cancer, or respiratory system disease were calculated. Survival analyses were performed, accounting for baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: The cohort contained 25,598 people (median age 41 years). The mirtazapine group had the highest standardised mortality rate, with an additional 7.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-9.7) deaths/1000 person-years compared to the SSRI group. Within 2 years of follow-up, the risk of all-cause mortality was statistically significantly higher in the mirtazapine group than in the SSRI group (weighted hazard ratio (HR) 1.62, 95% CI 1.28-2.06). No significant difference was found between the mirtazapine group and the amitriptyline (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85-1.63) or venlafaxine (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60-2.05) groups. After 2 years, the risk was significantly higher in the mirtazapine group compared to the SSRI (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04-2.19), amitriptyline (HR 2.59, 95% CI 1.38-4.86), and venlafaxine (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.02-5.44) groups. The risks of death due to cancer (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.06-2.85) and respiratory system disease (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.07-2.77) were significantly higher in the mirtazapine than in the SSRI group. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was higher in people prescribed mirtazapine than people prescribed a second SSRI, possibly reflecting residual differences in other risk factors between the groups. Identifying these potential health risks when prescribing mirtazapine may help reduce the risk of mortality.

Incidence and prevalence of primary care antidepressant prescribing in children and young people in England, 1998-2017: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of antidepressants in children and adolescents remains controversial. We examined trends over time and variation in antidepressant prescribing in children and young people in England and whether the drugs prescribed reflected UK licensing and guidelines. METHODS AND FINDINGS: QResearch is a primary care database containing anonymised healthcare records of over 32 million patients from more than 1,500 general practices across the UK. All eligible children and young people aged 5-17 years in 1998-2017 from QResearch were included. Incidence and prevalence rates of antidepressant prescriptions in each year were calculated overall, for 4 antidepressant classes (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], tricyclic and related antidepressants [TCAs], serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs], and other antidepressants), and for individual drugs. Adjusted trends over time and differences by social deprivation, region, and ethnicity were examined using Poisson regression, taking clustering within general practitioner (GP) practices into account using multilevel modelling. Of the 4.3 million children and young people in the cohort, 49,434 (1.1%) were prescribed antidepressants for the first time during 20 million years of follow-up. Males made up 52.0% of the cohorts, but only 34.1% of those who were first prescribed an antidepressant in the study period. The largest proportion of the cohort was from London (24.4%), and whilst ethnicity information was missing for 39.5% of the cohort, of those with known ethnicity, 75.3% were White. Overall, SSRIs (62.6%) were the most commonly prescribed first antidepressant, followed by TCAs (35.7%). Incident antidepressant prescribing decreased in 5- to 11-year-olds from a peak of 0.9 in females and 1.6 in males in 1999 to less than 0.2 per 1,000 for both sexes in 2017, but incidence rates more than doubled in 12- to 17-year-olds between 2005 and 2017 to 9.7 (females) and 4.2 (males) per 1,000 person-years. The lowest prescription incidence rates were in London, and the highest were in the South East of England (excluding London) for all sex and age groups. Those living in more deprived areas were more likely to be prescribed antidepressants after adjusting for region. The strongest trend was seen in 12- to 17-year-old females (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.11-1.13, p < 0.001, per deprivation quintile increase). Prescribing rates were highest in White and lowest in Black adolescents (aIRR 0.32, 95% CI 0.29-0.36, p < 0.001 [females]; aIRR 0.32, 95% CI 0.27-0.38, p < 0.001 [males]). The 5 most commonly prescribed antidepressants were either licensed in the UK for use in children and young people (CYP) or included in national guidelines. Limitations of the study are that, because we did not have access to secondary care prescribing information, we may be underestimating the prevalence and misidentifying the first antidepressant prescription. We could not assess whether antidepressants were dispensed or taken. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis provides evidence of a continuing rise of antidepressant prescribing in adolescents aged 12-17 years since 2005, driven by SSRI prescriptions, but a decrease in children aged 5-11 years. The variation in prescribing by deprivation, region, and ethnicity could represent inequities. Future research should examine whether prescribing trends and variation are due to true differences in need and risk factors, access to diagnosis or treatment, prescribing behaviour, or young people's help-seeking behaviour.

Secondary care specialist visits made by children and young people prescribed antidepressants in primary care: a descriptive study using the QResearch database.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants may be used to manage a number of conditions in children and young people including depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. UK guidelines for the treatment of depression in children and young people recommend that antidepressants should only be initiated following assessment and diagnosis by a child and adolescent psychiatrist. The aim of this study was to summarise visits to mental health specialists and indications recorded around the time of antidepressant initiation in children and young people in UK primary care. METHODS: The study used linked English primary care electronic health records and Hospital Episode Statistics secondary care data. The study included 5-17-year-olds first prescribed antidepressants between January 2006 and December 2017. Records of visits to paediatric or psychiatric specialists and potential indications (from a pre-specified list) were extracted. Events were counted if recorded less than 12 months before or 6 months after the first antidepressant prescription. Results were stratified by first antidepressant type (all, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), tricyclic and related antidepressants) and by age group (5-11 years, 12-17 years). RESULTS: In total, 33,031 5-17-year-olds were included. Of these, 12,149 (37%) had a record of visiting a paediatrician or a psychiatric specialist in the specified time window. The majority of recorded visits (7154, 22%) were to paediatricians. Of those prescribed SSRIs, 5463/22,130 (25%) had a record of visiting a child and adolescent psychiatrist. Overall, 17,972 (54%) patients had a record of at least one of the pre-specified indications. Depression was the most frequently recorded indication (12,501, 38%), followed by anxiety (4155, 13%). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest many children and young people are being prescribed antidepressants without the recommended involvement of a relevant specialist. These findings may justify both greater training for GPs in child and adolescent mental health and greater access to specialist care and non-pharmacological treatments. Further research is needed to explore factors that influence how and why GPs prescribe antidepressants to children and young people and the real-world practice barriers to adherence to clinical guidelines.

Patient perspectives on barriers and enablers to the use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques for the management of violence and aggression in mental health settings.

AIM: Investigate patient perspectives on barriers and enablers to the use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques for aggression in mental health settings. BACKGROUND: De-escalation techniques are the recommended first-line intervention for the management of aggression in mental health settings internationally, yet use of higher risk restrictive practices persists. This indicates de-escalation techniques are not used at optimum frequency and/or there are important factors limiting their use and effect. DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative research using semi-structured interviews and Framework Analysis. METHODS: Inpatient interviews (N = 26) exploring staff, patient and environmental factors influencing the use and effectiveness of staff de-escalation were conducted mid-2014. Three service user researchers led analysis. RESULTS: Data were synthesized in three deductive themes relating to staff, patient and environmental influences on the use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques. The dominant view was that restrictive practices, rather than de-escalation techniques, are used in response to escalating patient behaviour. Under-use of de-escalation techniques was attributed to: lack of staff reflection on culture and practice and a need to retain control/dominance over patients. Ward rules, patient factors and a lack of staff respect for patients diluted their effectiveness. Participants identified a systematic process of de-escalation, rule subversion, reduced social distance and staff authenticity as enablers of effective de-escalation. CONCLUSION: This study investigated patient perspectives on staff, patient and environmental influences on the use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques. Our framework of barriers and enablers provides indicators of organizational/behaviour change targets for interventions seeking to reduce violence and restrictive practices through enhanced de-escalation techniques.

Seasonal trends in antidepressant prescribing, depression, anxiety and self-harm in adolescents and young adults: an open cohort study using English primary care data.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing demand for mental health services for young people, which may vary across the year. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are seasonal patterns in primary care antidepressant prescribing and mental health issues in adolescents and young adults. METHODS: This cohort study used anonymised electronic health records from general practices in England contributing to QResearch. It included 5 081 263 males and females aged 14-18 (adolescents), 19-23 and 24-28 years between 2006 and 2019. The incidence rates per 1000 person-years and the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated for the first records of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) prescription, depression, anxiety and self-harm. The IRRs were adjusted for year, region, deprivation, ethnic group and number of working days. FINDINGS: There was an increase in SSRI prescribing, depression and anxiety incidence in male and female adolescents in the autumn months (September-November) that was not seen in older age groups. The IRRs for SSRI prescribing for adolescents peaked in November (females: 1.75, 95% CI 1.67 to 1.83, p<0.001; males: 1.72, 95% CI 1.61 to 1.84, p<0.001, vs in January) and for depression (females: 1.29, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.33, p<0.001; males: 1.29, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.35, p<0.001). Anxiety peaked in November for females aged 14-18 years (1.17, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.22, p<0.001) and in September for males (1.19, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.27, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There were higher rates of antidepressant prescribing and consultations for depression and anxiety at the start of the school year among adolescents. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Support around mental health issues from general practitioners and others should be focused during autumn.

Association between mirtazapine use and serious self-harm in people with depression: an active comparator cohort study using UK electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Studies report an increased risk of self-harm or suicide in people prescribed mirtazapine compared with other antidepressants. OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of serious self-harm in people prescribed mirtazapine versus other antidepressants as second-line treatments. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study using anonymised English primary care electronic health records, hospital admission data and mortality data with study window 1 January 2005 to 30 November 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 24 516 people diagnosed with depression, aged 18-99 years, initially prescribed a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and then prescribed mirtazapine, a different SSRI, amitriptyline or venlafaxine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospitalisation or death due to deliberate self-harm. Age-sex standardised rates were calculated and survival analyses were performed using inverse probability of treatment weighting to account for baseline covariates. RESULTS: Standardised rates of serious self-harm ranged from 3.8/1000 person-years (amitriptyline) to 14.1/1000 person-years (mirtazapine). After weighting, the risk of serious self-harm did not differ significantly between the mirtazapine group and the SSRI or venlafaxine groups (HRs (95% CI) 1.18 (0.84 to 1.65) and 0.85 (0.51 to 1.41) respectively). The risk was significantly higher in the mirtazapine than the amitriptyline group (3.04 (1.36 to 6.79)) but was attenuated after adjusting for dose. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence for a difference in risk between mirtazapine and SSRIs or venlafaxine after accounting for baseline characteristics. The higher risk in the mirtazapine versus the amitriptyline group might reflect residual confounding if amitriptyline is avoided in people considered at risk of self-harm. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Addressing baseline risk factors and careful monitoring might improve outcomes for people at risk of serious self-harm.

A randomised controlled trial investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Alpha-Stim AID cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) in patients seeking treatment for moderate severity depression in primary care (Alpha-Stim-D Trial).

BACKGROUND: Major depression is the second leading cause of years lost to disability worldwide and is a leading contributor to suicide. However, first-line antidepressants are only fully effective for 33%, and only 40% of those offered psychological treatment attend for two sessions or more. Views gained from patients and primary care professionals are that greater treatment uptake might be achieved if people with depression could be offered alternative and more accessible treatment options. Although there is evidence that the Alpha-Stim Anxiety Insomnia and Depression (AID) device is safe and effective for anxiety and depression symptoms in people with anxiety disorders, there is much less evidence of efficacy in major depression without anxiety. This study investigates the effectiveness of the Alpha-Stim AID device, a cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) treatment that people can safely use independently at home. The device provides CES which has been shown to increase alpha oscillatory brain activity, associated with relaxation. METHODS: The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Alpha-Stim AID in treatment-seeking patients (aged 16 years upwards) with moderate to moderately severe depressive symptoms in primary care. The study is a multi-centre parallel-group, double-blind, non-commercial, randomised controlled superiority trial. The primary objective of the study is to examine the clinical efficacy of active daily use of 8 weeks of Alpha-Stim AID versus sham Alpha-Stim AID on depression symptoms at 16 weeks (8 weeks after the end of treatment) in people with moderate severity depression. The primary outcome is the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at 16 weeks. All trial and treatment procedures are carried out remotely using videoconferencing, telephone and postal delivery considering the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. DISCUSSION: This study is investigating whether participants using the Alpha-Stim AID device display a reduction in depressive symptoms that can be maintained over 8 weeks post-treatment. The findings will help to determine whether Alpha-Stim AID should be recommended, including being made available in the NHS for patients with depressive symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRTCN ISRCTN11853110 . Registered on 14 August 2020.

Identifying research priorities for digital technology in mental health care: results of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

Digital technology, including the internet, smartphones, and wearables, provides the possibility to bridge the mental health treatment gap by offering flexible and tailored approaches to mental health care that are more accessible and potentially less stigmatising than those currently available. However, the evidence base for digital mental health interventions, including demonstration of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in real-world settings, remains inadequate. The James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership for digital technology in mental health care was established to identify research priorities that reflect the perspectives and unmet needs of people with lived experience of mental health problems and use of mental health services, their carers, and health-care practitioners. 644 participants contributed 1369 separate questions, which were reduced by qualitative thematic analysis into six overarching themes. Following removal of out-of-scope questions and a comprehensive search of existing evidence, 134 questions were verified as uncertainties suitable for research. These questions were then ranked online and in workshops by 628 participants to produce a shortlist of 26. The top ten research priorities, which were identified by consensus at a stakeholder workshop, should inform research policy and funding in this field. Identified priorities primarily relate to the safety and efficacy of digital technology interventions in comparison with face-to-face interventions, evidence of population reach, mechanisms of therapeutic change, and the ways in which the effectiveness of digital interventions in combination with human support might be optimised.