Pharmacological treatment of depression: A systematic review comparing clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Depression affects over 300 million individuals worldwide and is responsible for most of the 800,000 annual suicides. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treatment of depression, founded on scientific evidence, are essential to improve patient care. However, economic and sociocultural factors may influence CPG elaboration, potentially leading to divergences in their recommendations. Consequently, we analyzed pharmacological recommendations for the treatment of depression from the most relevant CPGs. We included four CPGs with scores ≥ 80% for Domain 3 (rigor of development) on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation and two other commonly used CPGs. The recommendations, their strengths, and the level of evidence were extracted from each CPG by two independent researchers and grouped as follows: (1) general recommendations for the pharmacological treatment for depression (suicide risk, acute treatment, continuation and maintenance phases, and treatment discontinuation); (2) treatment of non-responsive or partially responsive patients; and (3) treatment for subtypes of depression (chronic, psychotic, catatonic, melancholic, seasonal, somatic, mixed, and atypical). Only 50% of CPGs included recommendations for the risk of suicide associated with pharmacotherapy. All CPGs included serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as first-line treatment; however, one CPG also included agomelatine, milnacipran, and mianserin as first-line alternatives. Recommendations for depression subtypes (catatonic, atypical, melancholic) were included in three CPGs. The strength of recommendation and level of evidence clearly differed among CPGs, especially regarding treatment augmentation strategies. We conclude that, although CPGs converged in some recommendations (e.g., SSRIs as first-line treatment), they diverged in cardinal topics including the absence of recommendations regarding the risk of suicide associated with pharmacotherapy. Consequently, the recommendations listed in a specific CPG should be followed with caution.

Factors Associated With High-Quality Guidelines for the Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Diseases in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.

Importance: As the rate of publication of new and sometimes conflicting medical research increases, clinicians rely heavily on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to inform practice. However, CPGs are of widely variable quality, and there are no existing objective measures to rate the quality of CPGs. Objective: To systematically assess 421 CPGs for the management of common noncommunicable diseases in primary care using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument, version II (AGREE-II) tool and elucidate the factors associated with quality of CPGs. Evidence Review: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 12 websites for CPGs were searched for CPGs for the management of common noncommunicable diseases in primary care published between January 1, 2011, and August 30, 2017. The assessment of the quality of CPGs was performed by 3 appraisers using the 6 domains of the AGREE-II instrument. A multiple logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with quality of CPGs. Findings: Of the 421 CPGs reviewed, 23.5% (99) were classified as high quality. Among included guidelines, clarity of presentation (70%) and scope and purpose (61%) had the highest median AGREE-II scores. The domains with the lowest median scores were applicability (22%) and rigor of development (33%). Factors associated with high-quality CPGs included having more than 20 authors (odds ratio, 9.08; 95% CI, 3.35-24.62), development at governmental institutions (odds ratio, 10.38; 95% CI, 2.72-39.60), and reporting funding (odds ratio, 10.34; 95% CI, 4.77-22.39). Year of publication, region, guideline version, and scope were not associated with quality among included CPGs. Conclusions and Relevance: Primary care professionals and policymakers should be aware that CPGs in primary care are of widely variable quality, with less than 25% of included CPGs rated as high quality. High-quality CPGs were associated with a higher number of authors, governmental institutions, and the report of funding. Region of origin was not associated with quality of CPGs, which suggests that the improvement of the quality of CPGs should be an international concern.