Maintenance or Discontinuation of Antidepressants in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with depression who are treated in primary care practices may receive antidepressants for prolonged periods. Data are limited on the effects of maintaining or discontinuing antidepressant therapy in this setting. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving adults who were being treated in 150 general practices in the United Kingdom. All the patients had a history of at least two depressive episodes or had been taking antidepressants for 2 years or longer and felt well enough to consider stopping antidepressants. Patients who had received citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, or mirtazapine were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to maintain their current antidepressant therapy (maintenance group) or to taper and discontinue such therapy with the use of matching placebo (discontinuation group). The primary outcome was the first relapse of depression during the 52-week trial period, as evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, physical and withdrawal symptoms, quality of life, time to stopping an antidepressant or placebo, and global mood ratings. RESULTS: A total of 1466 patients underwent screening. Of these patients, 478 were enrolled in the trial (238 in the maintenance group and 240 in the discontinuation group). The average age of the patients was 54 years; 73% were women. Adherence to the trial assignment was 70% in the maintenance group and 52% in the discontinuation group. By 52 weeks, relapse occurred in 92 of 238 patients (39%) in the maintenance group and in 135 of 240 (56%) in the discontinuation group (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 2.70; P<0.001). Secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as the primary outcome. Patients in the discontinuation group had more symptoms of depression, anxiety, and withdrawal than those in the maintenance group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in primary care practices who felt well enough to discontinue antidepressant therapy, those who were assigned to stop their medication had a higher risk of relapse of depression by 52 weeks than those who were assigned to maintain their current therapy. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; ANTLER ISRCTN number, ISRCTN15969819.).

Clinical factors associated with relapse in depression in a sample of UK primary care patients who have been on long-term antidepressant treatment.

BACKGROUND: This paper investigates whether age of onset of depression, duration of the last episode, number of episodes, and residual symptoms of depression and anxiety are associated with depression relapse in primary care patients who have been on long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment and no longer meet ICD10 criteria for depression. METHODS: An observational cohort using data from ANTLER (N = 478), a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was time to relapse using the retrospective CIS-R. Participants were followed for 12 months. RESULTS: Primary outcome was available for 468 participants. Time to relapse in those with more than five previous episodes of depression was shorter, hazard ratio (HR) 1.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-2.75) compared to people with two episodes; HR 1.57 (95% CI 1.01-2.43) after adjustment. The residual symptoms of depression at baseline were also associated with increased relapse: HR 1.05 (95% CI 1.01-1.09) and HR 1.06 (95% CI 1.01-1.12) in the adjusted model. There was evidence of reduced rate of relapse in older age of onset group: HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.78-0.95); HR attenuated after adjustment HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.81-1.02). There was no evidence of an association between duration of the current episode and residual anxiety symptoms with relapse. CONCLUSIONS: The number of previous episodes and residual symptoms of depression were associated with increased likelihood of relapse. These factors could inform joint decision making when patients are considering tapering off maintenance antidepressant treatment or considering other treatments to prevent relapse.

A Clinical Leadership Lens on Implementing Progress Feedback in Three Countries: Development of a Multidimensional Qualitative Coding Scheme.

BACKGROUND: Progress feedback, also known as measurement-based care (MBC), is the routine collection of patient-reported measures to monitor treatment progress and inform clinical decision-making. Although a key ingredient to improving mental health care, sustained use of progress feedback is poor. Integration into everyday workflow is challenging, impacted by a complex interrelated set of factors across patient, clinician, organizational, and health system levels. This study describes the development of a qualitative coding scheme for progress feedback implementation that accounts for the dynamic nature of barriers and facilitators across multiple levels of use in mental health settings. Such a coding scheme may help promote a common language for researchers and implementers to better identify barriers that need to be addressed, as well as facilitators that could be supported in different settings and contexts. METHODS: Clinical staff, managers, and leaders from two Dutch, three Norwegian, and four mental health organizations in the USA participated in semi-structured interviews on how intra- and extra-organizational characteristics interact to influence the use of progress feedback in clinical practice, supervision, and program improvement. Interviews were conducted in the local language, then translated to English prior to qualitative coding. RESULTS: A team-based consensus coding approach was used to refine an a priori expert-informed and literature-based qualitative scheme to incorporate new understandings and constructs as they emerged. First, this hermeneutic approach resulted in a multi-level coding scheme with nine superordinate categories and 30 subcategories. Second-order axial coding established contextually sensitive categories for barriers and facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: The primary outcome is an empirically derived multi-level qualitative coding scheme that can be used in progress feedback implementation research and development. It can be applied across contexts and settings, with expectations for ongoing refinement. Suggestions for future research and application in practice settings are provided. Supplementary materials include the coding scheme and a detailed playbook.

The contribution of depressive 'disorder characteristics' to determinations of prognosis for adults with depression: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate general factors associated with prognosis regardless of the type of treatment received, for adults with depression in primary care. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central (inception to 12/01/2020) for RCTs that included the most commonly used comprehensive measure of depressive and anxiety disorder symptoms and diagnoses, in primary care depression RCTs (the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule: CIS-R). Two-stage random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Twelve (n = 6024) of thirteen eligible studies (n = 6175) provided individual patient data. There was a 31% (95%CI: 25 to 37) difference in depressive symptoms at 3-4 months per standard deviation increase in baseline depressive symptoms. Four additional factors: the duration of anxiety; duration of depression; comorbid panic disorder; and a history of antidepressant treatment were also independently associated with poorer prognosis. There was evidence that the difference in prognosis when these factors were combined could be of clinical importance. Adding these variables improved the amount of variance explained in 3-4 month depressive symptoms from 16% using depressive symptom severity alone to 27%. Risk of bias (assessed with QUIPS) was low in all studies and quality (assessed with GRADE) was high. Sensitivity analyses did not alter our conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: When adults seek treatment for depression clinicians should routinely assess for the duration of anxiety, duration of depression, comorbid panic disorder, and a history of antidepressant treatment alongside depressive symptom severity. This could provide clinicians and patients with useful and desired information to elucidate prognosis and aid the clinical management of depression.

Strategies to reduce use of antidepressants.

Antidepressant prescribing has increased year on year since the introduction of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the 1980s. More than 10% of adults in England are now taking antidepressants for depression/anxiety, with a median length of treatment of more than 2 years, but antidepressants can cause side effects and withdrawal symptoms which increase with longer use. Surveys of antidepressant users suggest 30-50% have no evidence-based indication to continue, but coming off antidepressants is often difficult due to fears of relapse, withdrawal symptoms and a lack of psychological treatments to replace maintenance treatment and prevent relapse. GPs should not prescribe antidepressants routinely for mild depressive/anxiety symptoms. Patients starting antidepressants should be advised that they are to be taken for a limited period only, and that there is a risk of withdrawal problems on stopping them. Prescribers should actively review long-term antidepressant use and suggest coming off them slowly to patients who are well. The relationship between SSRI dose and serotonin transporter receptor occupancy suggests that hyperbolic tapering regimes may be helpful for patients with troubling withdrawal symptoms who cannot stop treatment within 4-8 weeks, and tapering strips can allow carefully titrated slower dose reduction over some months. Internet and telephone support to patients wanting to reduce their antidepressants is being trialled in the REDUCE programme. More research is needed to establish the incidence of withdrawal symptoms in representative samples of patients coming off antidepressants, and large randomised controlled trials are needed to test different tapering strategies.

Is social support pre-treatment associated with prognosis for adults with depression in primary care?

OBJECTIVE: Depressed patients rate social support as important for prognosis, but evidence for a prognostic effect is lacking. We aimed to test the association between social support and prognosis independent of treatment type, and the severity of depression, and other clinical features indicating a more severe illness. METHODS: Individual patient data were collated from all six eligible RCTs (n = 2858) of adults seeking treatment for depression in primary care. Participants were randomized to any treatment and completed the same baseline assessment of social support and clinical severity factors. Two-stage random effects meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Social support was associated with prognosis independent of randomized treatment but effects were smaller when adjusting for depressive symptoms and durations of depression and anxiety, history of antidepressant treatment, and comorbid panic disorder: percentage decrease in depressive symptoms at 3-4 months per z-score increase in social support = -4.14(95%CI: -6.91 to -1.29). Those with a severe lack of social support had considerably worse prognoses than those with no lack of social support: increase in depressive symptoms at 3-4 months = 14.64%(4.25% to 26.06%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, large differences in social support pre-treatment were associated with differences in prognostic outcomes. Adding the Social Support scale to clinical assessments may be informative, but after adjusting for routinely assessed clinical prognostic factors the differences in prognosis are unlikely to be of a clinically important magnitude. Future studies might investigate more intensive treatments and more regular clinical reviews to mitigate risks of poor prognosis for those reporting a severe lack of social support.

Approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are the most frequent indication for which antidepressants are prescribed. Long-term antidepressant use is driving much of the internationally observed rise in antidepressant consumption. Surveys of antidepressant users suggest that 30% to 50% of long-term antidepressant prescriptions had no evidence-based indication. Unnecessary use of antidepressants puts people at risk of adverse events. However, high-certainty evidence is lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of approaches to discontinuing long-term antidepressants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched all databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) until January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing approaches to discontinuation with continuation of antidepressants (or usual care) for people with depression or anxiety who are prescribed antidepressants for at least six months. Interventions included discontinuation alone (abrupt or taper), discontinuation with psychological therapy support, and discontinuation with minimal intervention. Primary outcomes were successful discontinuation rate, relapse (as defined by authors of the original study), withdrawal symptoms, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, quality of life, social and occupational functioning, and severity of illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies involving 4995 participants. Nearly all studies were conducted in a specialist mental healthcare service and included participants with recurrent depression (i.e. two or more episodes of depression prior to discontinuation). All included trials were at high risk of bias. The main limitation of the review is bias due to confounding withdrawal symptoms with symptoms of relapse of depression. Withdrawal symptoms (such as low mood, dizziness) may have an effect on almost every outcome including adverse events, quality of life, social functioning, and severity of illness. Abrupt discontinuation Thirteen studies reported abrupt discontinuation of antidepressant. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that abrupt discontinuation without psychological support may increase risk of relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.74; 1373 participants, 10 studies) and there is insufficient evidence of its effect on adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.99; 1012 participants, 7 studies; I² = 37%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of abrupt discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. None of these studies included successful discontinuation rate as a primary endpoint. Discontinuation by "taper" Eighteen studies examined discontinuation by "tapering" (one week or longer). Most tapering regimens lasted four weeks or less. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that "tapered" discontinuation may lead to higher risk of relapse (HR 2.97, 95% CI 2.24 to 3.93; 1546 participants, 13 studies) with no or little difference in adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.38; 1479 participants, 7 studies; I² = 0%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. Discontinuation with psychological support Four studies reported discontinuation with psychological support. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that initiation of preventive cognitive therapy (PCT), or MBCT, combined with "tapering" may result in successful discontinuation rates of 40% to 75% in the discontinuation group (690 participants, 3 studies). Data from control groups in these studies were requested but are not yet available. Low-certainty evidence suggests that discontinuation combined with psychological intervention may result in no or little effect on relapse (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19; 690 participants, 3 studies) compared to continuation of antidepressants. Withdrawal symptoms were not measured. Pooling data on adverse events was not possible due to insufficient information (3 studies). Discontinuation with minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence from one study suggests that a letter to the general practitioner (GP) to review antidepressant treatment may result in no or little effect on successful discontinuation rate compared to usual care (6% versus 8%; 146 participants, 1 study) or on relapse (relapse rate 26% vs 13%; 146 participants, 1 study). No data on withdrawal symptoms nor adverse events were provided. None of the studies used low-intensity psychological interventions such as online support or a changed pharmaceutical formulation that allows tapering with low doses over several months. Insufficient data were available for the majority of people taking antidepressants in the community (i.e. those with only one or no prior episode of depression), for people aged 65 years and older, and for people taking antidepressants for anxiety. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, relatively few studies have focused on approaches to discontinuation of long-term antidepressants. We cannot make any firm conclusions about effects and safety of the approaches studied to date. The true effect and safety are likely to be substantially different from the data presented due to assessment of relapse of depression that is confounded by withdrawal symptoms. All other outcomes are confounded with withdrawal symptoms. Most tapering regimens were limited to four weeks or less. In the studies with rapid tapering schemes the risk of withdrawal symptoms may be similar to studies using abrupt discontinuation which may influence the effectiveness of the interventions. Nearly all data come from people with recurrent depression.   There is an urgent need for trials that adequately address withdrawal confounding bias, and carefully distinguish relapse from withdrawal symptoms. Future studies should report key outcomes such as successful discontinuation rate and should include populations with one or no prior depression episodes in primary care, older people, and people taking antidepressants for anxiety and use tapering schemes longer than 4 weeks.

A Digital Intervention for Primary Care Practitioners to Support Antidepressant Discontinuation (Advisor for Health Professionals): Development Study.

BACKGROUND: The number of people receiving antidepressants has increased in the past 3 decades, mainly because of people staying on them longer. However, in many cases long-term treatment is not evidence based and risks increasing side effects. Additionally, prompting general practitioners (GPs) to review medication does not improve the rate of appropriate discontinuation. Therefore, GPs and other health professionals may need help to support patients discontinuing antidepressants in primary care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a digital intervention to support practitioners in helping patients discontinue inappropriate long-term antidepressants (as part of a wider intervention package including a patient digital intervention and patient telephone support). METHODS: A prototype digital intervention called Advisor for Health Professionals (ADvisor HP) was planned and developed using theory, evidence, and a person-based approach. The following elements informed development: a literature review and qualitative synthesis, an in-depth qualitative study, the development of guiding principles for design elements, and theoretical behavioral analyses. The intervention was then optimized through think-aloud qualitative interviews with health professionals while they were using the prototype intervention. RESULTS: Think-aloud qualitative interviews with 19 health professionals suggested that the digital intervention contained useful information and was readily accessible to practitioners. The development work highlighted a need for further guidance on drug tapering schedules for practitioners and clarity about who is responsible for broaching the subject of discontinuation. Practitioners highlighted the need to have information in easily and quickly accessible formats because of time constraints in day-to-day practice. Some GPs felt that some information was already known to them but understood why this was included. Practitioners differed in their ideas about how they would use ADvisor HP in practice, with some preferring to read the resource in its entirety and others wanting to dip in and out as needed. Changes were made to the wording and structure of the intervention in response to the feedback provided. CONCLUSIONS: ADvisor HP is a digital intervention that has been developed using theory, evidence, and a person-based approach. The optimization work suggests that practitioners may find this tool to be useful in supporting the reduction of long-term antidepressant use. Further quantitative and qualitative evaluation through a randomized controlled trial is needed to examine the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

Managing Antidepressant Discontinuation: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the effectiveness of interventions to manage antidepressant discontinuation, and the outcomes for patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of studies published to March 2017. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, or observational studies assessing interventions to facilitate discontinuation of antidepressants for depression in adults. Our primary outcomes were antidepressant discontinuation and discontinuation symptoms. Secondary outcomes were relapse/recurrence; quality of life; antidepressant reduction; and sexual, social, and occupational function. RESULTS: Of 15 included studies, 12 studies (8 randomized controlled trials, 2 single-arm trials, 2 retrospective cohort studies) were included in the synthesis. None were rated as having high risk for selection or detection bias. Two studies prompting primary care clinician discontinuation with antidepressant tapering guidance found 6% and 7% of patients discontinued, vs 8% for usual care. Six studies of psychological or psychiatric treatment plus tapering reported cessation rates of 40% to 95%. Two studies reported a higher risk of discontinuation symptoms with abrupt termination. At 2 years, risk of relapse/recurrence was lower with cognitive behavioral therapy plus taper vs clinical management plus taper (15% to 25% vs 35% to 80%: risk ratio = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18-0.67; 2 studies). Relapse/recurrence rates were similar for mindfulness-based cognitive therapy with tapering and maintenance antidepressants (44% to 48% vs 47% to 60%; 2 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive behavioral therapy or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy can help patients discontinue antidepressants without increasing the risk of relapse/recurrence, but are resource intensive. More scalable interventions incorporating psychological support are needed.

Routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for improving treatment of common mental health disorders in adults.

BACKGROUND: Routine outcome monitoring of common mental health disorders (CMHDs), using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), has been promoted across primary care, psychological therapy and multidisciplinary mental health care settings, but is likely to be costly, given the high prevalence of CMHDs. There has been no systematic review of the use of PROMs in routine outcome monitoring of CMHDs across these three settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of routine measurement and feedback of the results of PROMs during the management of CMHDs in 1) improving the outcome of CMHDs; and 2) in changing the management of CMHDs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis group specialised controlled trials register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References), the Oxford University PROMS Bibliography (2002-5), Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and International trial registries, initially to 30 May 2014, and updated to 18 May 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected cluster and individually randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants with CMHDs aged 18 years and over, in which the results of PROMs were fed back to treating clinicians, or both clinicians and patients. We excluded RCTs in child and adolescent treatment settings, and those in which more than 10% of participants had diagnoses of eating disorders, psychoses, substance use disorders, learning disorders or dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently identified eligible trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We conducted meta-analysis across studies, pooling outcome measures which were sufficiently similar to each other to justify pooling. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies involving 8787 participants: nine in multidisciplinary mental health care, six in psychological therapy settings, and two in primary care. Pooling of outcome data to provide a summary estimate of effect across studies was possible only for those studies using the compound Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45) or Outcome Rating System (ORS) PROMs, which were all conducted in multidisciplinary mental health care or psychological therapy settings, because both primary care studies identified used single symptom outcome measures, which were not directly comparable to the OQ-45 or ORS.Meta-analysis of 12 studies including 3696 participants using these PROMs found no evidence of a difference in outcome in terms of symptoms, between feedback and no-feedback groups (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.16 to 0.01; P value = 0.10). The evidence for this comparison was graded as low quality however, as all included studies were considered at high risk of bias, in most cases due to inadequate blinding of assessors and significant attrition at follow-up.Quality of life was reported in only two studies, social functioning in one, and costs in none. Information on adverse events (thoughts of self-harm or suicide) was collected in one study, but differences between arms were not reported.It was not possible to pool data on changes in drug treatment or referrals as only two studies reported these. Meta-analysis of seven studies including 2608 participants found no evidence of a difference in management of CMHDs between feedback and no-feedback groups, in terms of the number of treatment sessions received (mean difference (MD) -0.02 sessions, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.39; P value = 0.93). However, the evidence for this comparison was also graded as low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to support the use of routine outcome monitoring using PROMs in the treatment of CMHDs, in terms of improving patient outcomes or in improving management. The findings are subject to considerable uncertainty however, due to the high risk of bias in the large majority of trials meeting the inclusion criteria, which means further research is very likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. More research of better quality is therefore required, particularly in primary care where most CMHDs are treated.Future research should address issues of blinding of assessors and attrition, and measure a range of relevant symptom outcomes, as well as possible harmful effects of monitoring, health-related quality of life, social functioning, and costs. Studies should include people treated with drugs as well as psychological therapies, and should follow them up for longer than six months.

Determinants of hospital length of stay for people with serious mental illness in England and implications for payment systems: a regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Serious mental illness (SMI), which encompasses a set of chronic conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychoses, accounts for 3.4 m (7 %) total bed days in the English NHS. The introduction of prospective payment to reimburse hospitals makes an understanding of the key drivers of length of stay (LOS) imperative. Existing evidence, based on mainly small scale and cross-sectional studies, is mixed. Our study is the first to use large-scale national routine data to track English hospitals' LOS for patients with a main diagnosis of SMI over time to examine the patient and local area factors influencing LOS and quantify the provider level effects to draw out the implications for payment systems. METHODS: We analysed variation in LOS for all SMI admissions to English hospitals from 2006 to 2010 using Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES). We considered patients with a LOS of up to 180 days and estimated Poisson regression models with hospital fixed effects, separately for admissions with one of three main diagnoses: schizophrenia; psychotic and schizoaffective disorder; and bipolar affective disorder. We analysed the independent contribution of potential determinants of LOS including clinical and socioeconomic characteristics of the patient, access to and quality of primary care, and local area characteristics. We examined the degree of unexplained variation in provider LOS. RESULTS: Most risk factors did not have a differential effect on LOS for different diagnostic sub-groups, however we did find some heterogeneity in the effects. Shorter LOS in the pooled model was associated with co-morbid substance or alcohol misuse (4 days), and personality disorder (8 days). Longer LOS was associated with older age (up to 19 days), black ethnicity (4 days), and formal detention (16 days). Gender was not a significant predictor. Patients who self-discharged had shorter LOS (20 days). No association was found between higher primary care quality and LOS. We found large differences between providers in unexplained variation in LOS. CONCLUSIONS: By identifying key determinants of LOS our results contribute to a better understanding of the implications of case-mix to ensure prospective payment systems reflect accurately the resource use within sub-groups of patients with SMI.

Health care professional barriers and facilitators to discontinuing antidepressant use: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term antidepressant (AD) use, much longer than recommended, is very common and can lead to potential harms. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the existing literature on perspectives of health professionals (HPs) regarding long-term AD treatment, focusing on barriers and facilitators to discontinuation. METHODS: A systematic review with thematic synthesis. Eight electronic databases were searched until August 2023 including MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, Health Management Information Consortium, and the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertation. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the review. Of these, nine focused on general practitioner perspectives, one on psychiatrist perspectives, and three on a mix of HPs perspectives. Barriers and facilitators to discontinuing long-term ADs emerged within eight themes, ordered chronologically based on HP considerations during an AD review: perception of AD use, fears, HP role and responsibility, HPs' perception of AD discontinuation, HPs' confidence regarding their ability to manage discontinuation, perceived patient readiness to stop, support from patient's trusted people, and support from other HPs. LIMITATIONS: Coding and development of subthemes and themes was performed by one researcher and further developed through discussion within the research team. CONCLUSION: Deprescribing long-term ADs is a challenging concept for HPs. The review found evidence that the barriers far outweigh the facilitators with fear of relapse as a main barrier. HP education, reassurance and confidence-building is essential to increase the initiation of the discontinuation process. Further research into the perspectives of pharmacists and mental health workers is needed as well as exploring the role of trusted people.

What predicts response to sertraline for people with depression in primary care? a secondary data analysis of moderators in the PANDA trial.

PURPOSE: Antidepressants are a first-line treatment for depression, yet many patients do not respond. There is a need to understand which patients have greater treatment response but there is little research on patient characteristics that moderate the effectiveness of antidepressants. This study examined potential moderators of response to antidepressant treatment. METHODS: The PANDA trial investigated the clinical effectiveness of sertraline (n = 326) compared with placebo (n = 329) in primary care patients with depressive symptoms. We investigated 11 potential moderators of treatment effect (age, employment, suicidal ideation, marital status, financial difficulty, education, social support, family history of depression, life events, health and past antidepressant use). Using multiple linear regression, we investigated the appropriate interaction term for each of these potential moderators with treatment as allocated. RESULTS: Family history of depression was the only variable with weak evidence of effect modification (p-value for interaction = 0.048), such that those with no family history of depression may have greater benefit from antidepressant treatment. We found no evidence of effect modification (p-value for interactions≥0.29) by any of the other ten variables. CONCLUSION: Evidence for treatment moderators was extremely limited, supporting an approach of continuing discuss antidepressant treatment with all patients presenting with moderate to severe depressive symptoms.

Distinguishing emotional distress from mental disorder in primary care: a qualitative exploration of the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians see people experiencing the full range of mental health problems. Determining when symptoms reflect disorder is complex. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) uniquely distinguishes general distress from depressive and anxiety disorders. It may support diagnostic conversations and targeting of treatment. AIM: To explore peoples' experiences of completing the 4DSQ and their perceptions of their resulting score profile across distress, depression, anxiety, and physical symptoms. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study was conducted in the UK with people recruited from primary care and community settings. METHOD: Participants completed the 4DSQ then took part in semi-structured telephone interviews. They were interviewed about their experience of completing the 4DSQ, their perceptions of their scores across four dimensions, and the perceived utility if used with a clinician. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty-four interviews were conducted. Most participants found the 4DSQ easy to complete and reported that scores across the four dimensions aligned well with their symptom experience. Distinct scores for distress, depression, and anxiety appeared to support improved self-understanding. Some valued the opportunity to discuss their scores and provide relevant context. Many felt the use of the 4DSQ with clinicians would be helpful and likely to support treatment decisions, although some were concerned about time-limited consultations. CONCLUSION: Distinguishing general distress from depressive and anxiety disorders aligned well with people's experience of symptoms. Use of the 4DSQ as part of mental health consultations may support targeting of treatment and personalisation of care.

Depression follow-up monitoring with the PHQ-9: an open cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Outcome monitoring of depression treatment is recommended but there is a lack of evidence on patient benefit in primary care. AIM: To test monitoring depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) with patient feedback. DESIGN AND SETTING: An open cluster-randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 141 group practices. METHOD: Adults with new depressive episodes were recruited through record searches and opportunistically. The exclusion criteria were as follows: dementia; psychosis; substance misuse; and suicide risk. The PHQ-9 was administered soon after diagnosis, and 10-35 days later. The primary outcome was the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 12 weeks. The secondary outcomes were as follows: BDI-II at 26 weeks; Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) and EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality of life at 12 and 26 weeks; antidepressant treatment; mental health and social service contacts; adverse events, and Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS) over 26 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 302 patients were recruited to the intervention arm and 227 to the controls. At 12 weeks, 254 (84.1%) and 199 (87.7%) were followed-up, respectively. Only 40.9% of patients in the intervention had a GP follow-up PHQ-9 recorded. There was no significant difference in BDI-II score at 12 weeks (mean difference -0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.16 to 1.26; adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering by practice). EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life scores were higher in the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053; 95% CI = 0.013 to 0.093. A clinically significant difference in depression at 26 weeks could not be ruled out. No significant differences were found in social functioning, adverse events, or satisfaction. In a per-protocol analysis, antidepressant use and mental health contacts were significantly greater in patients in the intervention arm with a recorded follow-up PHQ-9 (P = 0.025 and P = 0.010, respectively). CONCLUSION: No evidence was found of improved depression outcome at 12 weeks from monitoring. The findings of possible benefits over 26 weeks warrant replication, investigating possible mechanisms, preferably with automated delivery of monitoring and more instructive feedback.

Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression: the PROMDEP cluster RCT and economic evaluation.

Background: Guidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes. Objective: To test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback. Design: Parallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control. Setting: UK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales). Inclusion criteria: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations. Exclusions: Current depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide. Intervention: Administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10-35 days later, compared with usual care. Primary outcome: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events. Sample size: The original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure. Randomisation: Remote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location. Blinding: Blinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation. Analysis: Linear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks. Qualitative interviews: Practitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework. Results: Three hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.46, 95% confidence interval -2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval -0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (-£163, 95% confidence interval -£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming. Conclusions: We found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients' quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment. Study registration: This study is registered as IRAS250225 and ISRCTN17299295. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Depression is common, can be disabling and costs the nation billions. The National Health Service recommends general practitioners who treat people with depression use symptom questionnaires to help assess whether those people are getting better over time. A symptom questionnaire is one type of patient-reported outcome measure. Patient-reported outcome measures appear to benefit people having therapy and mental health care, but this approach has not been tested thoroughly in general practice. Most people with depression are treated in general practice, so it is important to test patient-reported outcome measures there, too. In this study, we tested whether using a patient-reported outcome measure helps people with depression get better more quickly. The study was a 'randomised controlled trial' in general practices, split into two groups. In one group, people with depression completed the Patient Health Questionnaire, or 'PHQ-9', patient-reported outcome measure, which measures nine symptoms of depression. In the other group, people with depression were treated as usual without the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We fed the results of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 back to the people with depression themselves to show them how severe their depression was and asked them to discuss the results with the practitioners looking after them. We found no differences between the patient-reported outcome measure group and the control group in their level of depression; their work or social life; their satisfaction with care from their practice; or their use of medicines, therapy or specialist care for depression. However, we did find that their quality of life was improved at 6 months, and the costs of the National Health Service services they used were lower. Using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 can improve patients' quality of life, perhaps by making them more aware of improvement in their depression symptoms, and less anxious as a result. Future research should test using a patient-reported outcome measure that includes anxiety and processing the answers through a computer to give practitioners clearer advice on possible changes to treatment for depression.

Internet and Telephone Support for Discontinuing Long-Term Antidepressants: The REDUCE Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: There is significant concern regarding increasing long-term antidepressant treatment for depression beyond an evidence-based duration. Objective: To determine whether adding internet and telephone support to a family practitioner review to consider discontinuing long-term antidepressant treatment is safe and more effective than a practitioner review alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, 131 UK family practices were randomized between December 1, 2018, and March 31, 2022, with remote computerized allocation and 12 months of follow-up. Participants and researchers were aware of allocation, but analysis was blind. Participants were adults who were receiving antidepressants for more than 1 year for a first episode of depression or more than 2 years for recurrent depression who were currently well enough to consider discontinuation and wished to do so and who were at low risk of relapse. Of 6725 patients mailed invitations, 330 (4.9%) were eligible and consented. Interventions: Internet and telephone self-management support, codesigned and coproduced with patients and practitioners. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary (safety) outcome was depression at 6 months (prespecified complete-case analysis), testing for noninferiority of the intervention to under 2 points on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes (testing for superiority) were antidepressant discontinuation, anxiety, quality of life, antidepressant withdrawal symptoms, mental well-being, enablement, satisfaction, use of health care services, and adverse events. Analyses for the main outcomes were performed on a complete-case basis, and multiple imputation sensitivity analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: Of 330 participants recruited (325 eligible for inclusion; 178 in intervention practices and 147 in control practices; mean [SD] age at baseline, 54.0 [14.9] years; 223 women [68.6%]), 276 (83.6%) were followed up at 6 months, and 240 (72.7%) at 12 months. The intervention proved noninferior; mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores at 6 months were slightly lower in the intervention arm than in the control arm in the complete-case analysis (4.0 [4.3] vs 5.0 [4.7]; adjusted difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1; P = .03) but not significantly different in an intention-to-treat multiple imputation sensitivity analysis (adjusted difference, -0.9 (95% CI, -1.9 to 0.1; P = .08). By 6 months, antidepressants had been discontinued by 66 of 145 intervention arm participants (45.5%) who provided discontinuation data and 54 of 129 control arm participants (41.9%) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.52-1.99; P = .96). In the intervention arm, antidepressant withdrawal symptoms were less severe, and mental well-being was better compared with the control arm; differences were small but significant. There were no significant differences in the other outcomes; 28 of 179 intervention arm participants (15.6%) and 22 of 151 control arm participants (14.6%) experienced adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial of adding internet and telephone support to a practitioner review for possible antidepressant discontinuation, depression was slightly better with support, but the rate of discontinuation of antidepressants did not significantly increase. Improvements in antidepressant withdrawal symptoms and mental well-being were also small. There were no significant harms. Family practitioner review for possible discontinuation of antidepressants appeared safe and effective for more than 40% of patients willing and well enough to discontinue. Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry Identifiers: ISRCTN15036829 (internal pilot trial) and ISRCTN12417565 (main trial).

Cost-Utility Analysis of Discontinuing Antidepressants in England Primary Care Patients Compared with Long-Term Maintenance: The ANTLER Study.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common mental health condition with considerable negative impact on health and well-being. Although antidepressants are recommended as first-line treatment, there is limited evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of long-term maintenance antidepressants for preventing relapse. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to calculate the mean incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 12 months of discontinuing long-term antidepressant medication in well patients compared with maintenance, using patient-level trial data. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis of 478 participants from 150 UK general practices recruited to a randomised, double-blind trial (ANTLER). QALYs were calculated from EQ-5D-5L and 12-Item Short Form survey (SF-12) results, with primary analysis using the EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Resource use was collected from primary care patient electronic medical records and self-completed questionnaires capturing mental-health-related resource use. Costs were calculated by applying standard UK unit costs to resource use. Adjustments were made for baseline variables. RESULTS: Participants randomised to discontinuation had significantly worse utility scores at 3 months (- 0.032; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.053 to - 0.011) but no significant difference in QALYs (- 0.011; 95% CI - 0.026 to 0.003) or costs (£3.11; 95% CI - 41.28 to 47.50) at 12 months. The probability that discontinuation was cost effective compared with maintenance was 12.9% at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation of antidepressants was unlikely to be cost effective compared with maintenance for currently well patients on long-term antidepressants. However, this analysis provides no information on the wider impact of antidepressants. Our findings provide information on the potential impact of discontinuing long-term maintenance antidepressants and facilitate improving guidance for shared patient-clinician decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2015-004210-26; ISRCTN number ISRCTN15969819.