Dataset Information

Real-world determinants of adjunctive antipsychotic prescribing for patients with major depressive disorder and inadequate response to antidepressants: a case review study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) often fail to respond to first-line antidepressant treatments (ADTs); subsequent strategies include dosage increase, switch to a different ADT, or addition of another ADT or other drug. The objective of this prospective, case review study was to identify factors that influence the decision to prescribe adjunctive antipsychotics for patients with MDD and inadequate response to ADT.

Methods

Psychiatrists or primary care physicians (n=411) based in the USA and Europe each completed an online survey for ten consecutive adults with MDD and inadequate response to ADTs, and for whom a treatment change was considered. A t test was used to compare survey responses between groups of patients.

Results

The survey was completed for 4018 patients; an adjunctive antipsychotic was considered for 961/4018 patients (23.9%) and actually prescribed for 514/4018 (12.8%). Compared with patients not considered for an adjunctive antipsychotic, those who were considered for this treatment had more previous major depressive episodes (MDEs), longer duration of the current MDE, more severe illness both at ADT initiation and current consultation, and more treatment changes. Patients who were prescribed adjunctive antipsychotics had at baseline more functional impairment and absences from work than those considered for but not prescribed this treatment. Key symptoms that prompted physicians to consider antipsychotics were psychotic symptoms, psychomotor agitation, hostility, irritability, impulsivity, and anger bursts. Anxious mood and irritability were mentioned significantly more often by physicians who actually prescribed adjunctive antipsychotics. Obstacles to prescribing included a tendency to wait to see if symptoms improved and concern over side effects.

Conclusion

This real-world study suggested that the decision to prescribe an adjunctive antipsychotic for patients with MDD and inadequate response to ADT is influenced by a broad spectrum of factors, predominantly related to severity of illness, functional impairment, and symptom profile.

Funding

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc. (Princeton, USA) and H. Lundbeck A/S (Valby, Denmark).

SUBMITTER: McIntyre RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4449372 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThere is little evidence regarding the most effective timing of augmentation of antidepressants (AD) with antipsychotics (AP) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who inadequately respond to first-line AD (inadequate responders). The study's objective was to understand the association between timing of augmentation of AD with AP and overall healthcare costs in inadequate responders.MethodsUsing the Truven Health MarketScan® Medicaid, Commercial, and Medicare Supplemental databases (7/1/09-12/31/16), we identified adult inadequate responders if they had one of the following indicating incomplete response to initial AD: psychiatric hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit, initiating psychotherapy, or switching to or adding on a different AD. Two mutually exclusive cohorts were identified on the basis of time from first qualifying event date to first date of augmentation with an AP (index date): 0-6 months (early add-on) and 7-12 months (late add-on). Patients were further required to be continuously enrolled 1 year before (baseline) and 1 year after (follow-up) index date. Patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder diagnoses were excluded. General linear regression was used to estimate adjusted healthcare costs in the early versus late add-on cohort, controlling for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, insurance type, medications, and ED visits or hospitalizations.ResultsOf the 6935 identified inadequate responders, 68.7% started an AP early and 31.3% late. At baseline, before AP augmentation, patients in the early add-on cohort had higher psychiatric comorbid disease burden (47.3% vs. 42.5%; p < 0.001) and higher inpatient utilization [mean (SD) 0.41 (0.72) vs. 0.27 (0.67); p < 0.001] than in late add-on cohort. During follow-up, the adjusted total all-cause healthcare cost was significantly lower in the early vs. late add-on cohort ($18,864 vs. $20,452; p = 0.046).ConclusionFindings of this real-world study suggest that, in patients with MDD who inadequately responded to first-line AD treatment, adding an AP earlier reduces overall healthcare costs.FundingOtsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization, Inc. and Lundbeck.

Project description:ObjectiveGuidelines for the prescription of antidepressants for Depressive Disorders (DD) have been in place for a long time. However, there is a lack of systematic information on the prescribing behavior of antidepressants in evidence-based clinical practice in psychopharmacotherapy of depressive disorders. This may suggest a lack of implementation of clinical guidelines by clinicians. Existing literature mainly focuses on specific issues or medications. To provide general information on the prescribing behavior of antidepressants for depressive disorders, a systematic review of available studies since 2013 was conducted.Methods and materialsTo ensure a structured and systematic approach for the literature search and subsequent review process, the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed. Major medical and health and psychological databases were used for the literature search. These included Ebsco Host, OVID, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. The online application "Covidence" was employed to manage the titles collected and the full articles retrieved from the initial literature search. Upon finalizing the list of selected studies, data extraction was then conducted using a build-in function of the Covidence platform with the required information pre-set on a template for data extraction. The extracted information was tabulated and summarized in a table.ResultsForty-one studies were identified after an extensive search of the literature following the PRISMA guidelines. Of these, 37 quantitative studies providing useful information were systematically reviewed and information extracted. There was a high level of heterogeneity among these studies with different foci or characteristics. Most studies were conducted in or utilized data obtained from hospital and primary healthcare settings. SSRIs were the most commonly prescribed type of antidepressant in the past decade, particularly among younger patients. Among these studies, antidepressants were mainly prescribed by psychiatrists with some by other physicians and general practitioners. This might reflect differences in legislation regarding professional requirements for prescribers or clinical practices.ConclusionsA few themes that would be considered important in terms of the effect of prescription behavior on depression, specifically children/adolescents, special target populations, and off-label prescription. The results highlighted the need for more studies on a community-based approach and the role of GPs in the treatment of DD.

Project description:BackgroundAtypical antipsychotic medications are widely prescribed for the adjunctive treatment of depression, yet their total risk-benefit profile is not well understood. We thus conducted a systematic review of the efficacy and safety profiles of atypical antipsychotic medications used for the adjunctive treatment of depression.Methods and findingsWe included randomized trials comparing adjunctive antipsychotic medication to placebo for treatment-resistant depression in adults. Our literature search (conducted in December 2011 and updated on December 14, 2012) identified 14 short-term trials of aripiprazole, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC), quetiapine, and risperidone. When possible, we supplemented published literature with data from manufacturers' clinical trial registries and US Food and Drug Administration New Drug Applications. Study duration ranged from 4 to 12 wk. All four drugs had statistically significant effects on remission, as follows: aripiprazole (odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.48-2.73), OFC (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.0), quetiapine (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.33-2.42), and risperidone (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.31-4.30). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 19 for OFC and nine for each other drug. All drugs with the exception of OFC also had statistically significant effects on response rates, as follows: aripiprazole (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.58-2.72; NNT, 7), OFC (OR, 1.30, 95% CI, 0.87-1.93), quetiapine (OR, 1.53, 95% CI, 1.17-2.0; NNT, 10), and risperidone (OR, 1.83, 95% CI, 1.16-2.88; NNT, 8). All four drugs showed statistically significant effects on clinician-rated depression severity measures (Hedges' g ranged from 0.26 to 0.48; mean difference of 2.69 points on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale across drugs). On measures of functioning and quality of life, these medications produced either no benefit or a very small benefit, except for risperidone, which had a small-to-moderate effect on quality of life (g?=?0.49). Treatment was linked to several adverse events, including akathisia (aripiprazole), sedation (quetiapine, OFC, and aripiprazole), abnormal metabolic laboratory results (quetiapine and OFC), and weight gain (all four drugs, especially OFC). Shortcomings in study design and data reporting, as well as use of post hoc analyses, may have inflated the apparent benefits of treatment and reduced the apparent incidence of adverse events.ConclusionsAtypical antipsychotic medications for the adjunctive treatment of depression are efficacious in reducing observer-rated depressive symptoms, but clinicians should interpret these findings cautiously in light of (1) the small-to-moderate-sized benefits, (2) the lack of benefit with regards to quality of life or functional impairment, and (3) the abundant evidence of potential treatment-related harm. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.