Dataset Information

Explaining the rise in antidepressant prescribing: a descriptive study using the general practice research database.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore the reasons behind the recent increase in antidepressant prescribing in the United Kingdom. Design Detailed retrospective analysis of data on general practitioner consultations and antidepressant prescribing. Data source Data were obtained from the general practice research database, which contains linked anonymised records of over 3 million patients registered in the UK. Data were extracted for all new incident cases of depression between 1993 and 2005. Review methods Detailed analysis of general practitioner consultations and antidepressant prescribing was restricted to 170 practices that were contributing data for the full duration of the study.

Results

In total, 189 851 people within the general practice research database experienced their first episode of depression between 1993 and 2005, of whom 150,825 (79.4%) received a prescription for antidepressants in the first year of diagnosis. This proportion remained stable across all the years examined. The incidence of new cases of depression rose in young women but fell slightly in other groups such that overall incidence increased then declined slightly (men: 7.83 cases per 1000 patient years in 1993 to 5.97 in 2005, women: 15.83 cases per 1000 patient years in 1993 to 10.06 in 2005). Antidepressant prescribing nearly doubled during the study period-the average number of prescriptions issued per patient increased from 2.8 in 1993 to 5.6 in 2004. The majority of antidepressant prescriptions were given as long term treatment or as intermittent treatment to patients with multiple episodes of depression.

Conclusions

The rise in antidepressant prescribing is mainly explained by small changes in the proportion of patients receiving long term treatment. Previous clinical guidelines have focused on antidepressant initiation and appropriate targeting of antidepressants. To address the costly rise in antidepressant prescribing, future research and guidance needs to concentrate on appropriate long term prescribing for depression and regular review of medication.

SUBMITTER: Moore M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2762496 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionWhat is the prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, and what is the variation between practices?MethodsA cross sectional study included all adult patients potentially at risk of a prescribing or monitoring error defined by a combination of diagnoses and prescriptions in 526 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) up to 1 April 2013. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of potentially hazardous prescriptions of anticoagulants, anti-platelets, NSAIDs, β blockers, glitazones, metformin, digoxin, antipsychotics, combined hormonal contraceptives, and oestrogens and monitoring by blood test less frequently than recommended for patients with repeated prescriptions of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and loop diuretics, amiodarone, methotrexate, lithium, or warfarin.Study answer and limitations49 927 of 949 552 patients at risk triggered at least one prescribing indicator (5.26%, 95% confidence interval 5.21% to 5.30%) and 21 501 of 182 721 (11.8%, 11.6% to 11.9%) triggered at least one monitoring indicator. The prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing ranged from almost zero to 10.2%, and for inadequate monitoring ranged from 10.4% to 41.9%. Older patients and those prescribed multiple repeat medications had significantly higher risks of triggering a prescribing indicator whereas younger patients with fewer repeat prescriptions had significantly higher risk of triggering a monitoring indicator. There was high variation between practices for some indicators. Though prescribing safety indicators describe prescribing patterns that can increase the risk of harm to the patient and should generally be avoided, there will always be exceptions where the indicator is clinically justified. Furthermore there is the possibility that some information is not captured by CPRD for some practices-for example, INR results in patients receiving warfarin.What this study addsThe high prevalence for certain indicators emphasises existing prescribing risks and the need for their appropriate consideration within primary care, particularly for older patients and those taking multiple medications. The high variation between practices indicates potential for improvement through targeted practice level intervention.Funding, competing interests, data sharingNational Institute for Health Research through the Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (grant No GMPSTRC-2012-1). Data from CPRD cannot be shared because of licensing restrictions.

Project description:BackgroundPatients diagnosed with cancer by the emergency route often have more advanced diseases and poorer outcomes. Rates of cancer diagnosed through unplanned admissions vary within and between countries, suggesting potential inconsistencies in the quality of care. To reduce diagnoses by this route and improve patient outcomes, high risk patient groups must be identified. This cross-sectional observational study determined the incidence of first-ever diagnoses of cancer by emergency (unplanned) admission and identified patient-level risk factors for these diagnoses in England.MethodsData for 74,763 randomly selected patients at 457 general practices between 1999 and 2008 were obtained from the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), including integrated Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality data. The proportion of first-ever diagnoses by emergency admission out of all recorded first cancer diagnoses by any route was analysed by patient characteristics.ResultsDiagnosis by emergency admission was recorded in 13.9% of patients diagnosed with cancer for the first time (n = 817/5870). The incidence of first cases by the emergency route was 2.51 patients per 10,000 person years. In adjusted regression analyses, patients of older age (p < 0.0001), living in the most deprived areas (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.47; p < 0.0001) or who had a total Charlson score of 1 compared to 0 (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.69; p = 0.014) were most at risk of diagnosis by emergency admission. Patients with more prior (all-cause) emergency admissions were less at risk of subsequent diagnosis by the emergency route (RR 0.31 per prior emergency admission, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsA much lower incidence of first-ever cancer diagnoses by emergency admission was found compared with previous studies. Identified high risk groups may benefit from interventions to reduce delayed diagnosis. Further studies should include screening and cancer staging data to improve understanding of delayed or untimely diagnosis and patient care pathways.