Association Between Antipsychotic Polypharmacy and Outcomes for People With Serious Mental Illness in England.

OBJECTIVE: Although U.K. and international guidelines recommend monotherapy, antipsychotic polypharmacy among patients with serious mental illness is common in clinical practice. However, empirical evidence on its effectiveness is scarce. Therefore, the authors estimated the effectiveness of antipsychotic polypharmacy relative to monotherapy in terms of health care utilization and mortality. METHODS: Primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink, hospital data from Hospital Episode Statistics, and mortality data from the Office of National Statistics were linked to compile a cohort of patients with serious mental illness in England from 2000 to 2014. The antipsychotic prescribing profile of 17,255 adults who had at least one antipsychotic drug record during the period of observation was constructed from primary care medication records. Survival analysis models were estimated to identify the effect of antipsychotic polypharmacy on the time to first occurrence of each of three outcomes: unplanned hospital admissions (all cause), emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality. RESULTS: Relative to monotherapy, antipsychotic polypharmacy was not associated with increased risk of unplanned hospital admission (hazard ratio [HR]=1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.98-1.32), ED visit (HR=0.95; 95% CI=0.80-1.14), or death (HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.76-1.37). Relative to not receiving antipsychotic medication, monotherapy was associated with a reduced hazard of unplanned admissions to the hospital and ED visits, but it had no effect on mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The study results support current guidelines for antipsychotic monotherapy in routine clinical practice. However, they also suggest that when clinicians have deemed antipsychotic polypharmacy necessary, health care utilization and mortality are not affected.

Referral to a new psychological therapy service is associated with reduced utilisation of healthcare and sickness absence by people with common mental health problems: a before and after comparison.

BACKGROUND: Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) is a new programme designed to reduce disease burden to the individual and economic burden to the society of common mental health problems (CMHP). This is the first study to look at the impact of IAPT on health service utilisation and sickness absence using routine data. METHOD: The authors used pseudonymised secure and privately linked (SAPREL) routinely collected primary, secondary care and clinic computer data from two pilot localities. The authors explored antidepressant prescribing, accident and emergency and outpatients attendances, inpatient stays, bed days, and sick certification. The authors compared the registered population with those with CMHP. The authors then made a 6 months before and after comparison of people referred to IAPT with age-sex and practice-matched controls. RESULTS: People with CMHP used more health resources than those without CMHP: more prescriptions of antidepressants 5.25 (95% CI 5.38 to 5.13), inpatient episodes 4.89 (95% CI 5.0 to 4.79), occupied bed days 1.25 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.55), outpatient 1.5 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.63) and emergency department attendances 0.34 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.37), and medical certificates 0.29 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.32). Comparison of service utilisation 6 months before and after referral to IAPT was associated with reduced use of emergency department attendances (mean difference: 0.12 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.19, p<0.001)). However, the number of prescriptions of antidepressants increased mean difference -0.15 (95% CI 0.02-0.29, p=0.028). CONCLUSIONS: People with CMHP use more healthcare resources. Referral to the IAPT programme is associated with a subsequent reduction in emergency department attendances, sickness certification and improved adherence to drug treatment.

Be vigilant for common mental health disorders.

Common mental health disorders (CMHD) affect one in six people in the community. These disorders are even more common in primary care. A New Zealand study found that 20.7% of people presenting to primary care had suffered a CMHD over a 12-month period, compared with 14.8% in the community. Most sufferers do not consult their GP, even when patients do present with symptoms they are often not diagnosed. Only 24% of sufferers in the ONS survey were receiving treatment: 14% medication; 5% counselling or therapy and 5% both. The new NICE guideline on identifying CMHD brings together recommendations on identification, assessment and referral in one place, for easy reference. The NICE depression guidelines recommend that GPs are alert for depression in those with a past history of depression, and in patients with a chronic physical health problem. The GAD and panic guideline also recommends that practitioners look for anxiety disorders in those with chronic physical disorders, plus frequent attenders with multiple functional somatic symptoms, and patients with excessive alcohol consumption.

Feasibility and acceptability of screening for eating disorders in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Earlier diagnosis of disordered eating is linked to improved prognosis, but detection in primary care is poor. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of screening for disordered eating within primary care, in terms of the proportion of patients accepting screening, yield of cases, action taken by staff and staff views on screening. METHODS: Data were collected in open GP surgeries, midwife (MW) antenatal clinics and health visitor (HV) child health surveillance clinics in two GP practices, using face-to-face surveys and semi-structured interviews. Female patients aged 16-35 were asked to complete the SCOFF questionnaire, which was scored by researchers and taken by the patient into their consultation. If the result indicated possible disturbed eating, the health professional (HP) running the surgery/clinic was asked to complete a questionnaire and interview. One hundred and eleven women were screened and 11 HPs (GPs, MWs, HVs) were interviewed. RESULTS: Forty-six percent of patients agreed to be screened. Of these, 16% produced a positive result. The staff survey suggested that HPs found screening acceptable. However, concerns arose in the interviews, principally over what action to take in response to positive results. Positive results were rarely recorded in medical notes, and treatment was rarely offered. CONCLUSION: In order for a screening programme for eating disorders to be implemented in primary care, HP concerns about options for dealing with positive results would need to be addressed. Feasibility of screening would be enhanced by production of a protocol to be followed in the case of positive results.