Dataset Information

Antidepressant and anticonvulsant prescription rates in patients with osteoarthritis: a population-based cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

There are signs that antidepressants and anticonvulsants are being prescribed more often for OA patients, despite limited evidence. Our objectives were to examine prescription rates and time trends for antidepressants and anticonvulsants in OA patients, to assess the percentage of long-term prescriptions, and to determine patient characteristics associated with antidepressant or anticonvulsant prescription.

Methods

A population-based cohort study was conducted using the Integrated Primary Care Information database. First, episodic and prevalent prescription rates for antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline and duloxetine) and anticonvulsants (gabapentinoids) in OA patients were calculated for the period 2008-17. Logistic regression was used to assess which patient characteristics were associated with prescriptions.

Results

In total, 164 292 OA patients were included. The prescription rates of amitriptyline, gabapentin and pregabalin increased over time. The increase in prescription rates for pregabalin was most pronounced. Episodic prescription rate increased from 7.1 to 13.9 per 1000 person-years between 2008 and 2017. Amitriptyline was prescribed most (15.1 episodic prescriptions per 1000 person-years in 2017). Prescription rates of nortriptyline and duloxetine remained stable at 3.0 and 2.0 episodic prescriptions per 1000 person-years, respectively. For ≤3% of patients with incident OA, medication was prescribed long-term (≥3 months). In general, all medication was prescribed more frequently for older patients (except duloxetine), women, patients with OA in ≥2 joints, patients with spinal OA and patients with musculoskeletal disorders.

Conclusion

Prescription rates of amitriptyline, gabapentin and pregabalin increased over time. Since there is little evidence to support prescription in OA, caution is necessary when prescribing.

SUBMITTER: van den Driest JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8121444 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine mortality and revision rates among patients with osteoarthritis undergoing hip arthroplasty and to compare these rates between patients undergoing cemented or uncemented procedures and to compare outcomes between men undergoing stemmed total hip replacements and Birmingham hip resurfacing.DesignCohort study.SettingNational Joint Registry.PopulationAbout 275,000 patient records.Main outcome measuresHip arthroplasty procedures were linked to the time to any subsequent mortality or revision (implant failure). Flexible parametric survival analysis methods were used to analyse time to mortality and also time to revision. Comparisons between procedure groups were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and complexity.ResultsAs there were large baseline differences in the characteristics of patients receiving cemented, uncemented, or resurfacing procedures, unadjusted comparisons are inappropriate. Multivariable survival analyses identified a higher mortality rate for patients undergoing cemented compared with uncemented total hip replacement (adjusted hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.16); conversely, there was a lower revision rate with cemented procedures (0.53, 0.50 to 0.57). These translate to small predicted differences in population averaged absolute survival probability at all time points. For example, compared with the uncemented group, at eight years after surgery the predicted probability of death in the cemented group was 0.013 higher (0.007 to 0.019) and the predicted probability of revision was 0.015 lower (0.012 to 0.017). In multivariable analyses restricted to men, there was a higher mortality rate in the cemented group and the uncemented group compared with the Birmingham hip resurfacing group. In terms of revision, the Birmingham hip resurfacings had a similar revision rate to uncemented total hip replacements. Both uncemented total hip replacements and Birmingham hip resurfacings had a higher revision rate than cemented total hip replacements.ConclusionsThere is a small but significant increased risk of revision with uncemented rather than cemented total hip replacement, and a small but significant increased risk of death with cemented procedures. It is not known whether these are causal relations or caused by residual confounding. Compared with uncemented and cemented total hip replacements, Birmingham hip resurfacing has a significantly lower risk of death in men of all ages. Previously, only adjusted analyses of hip implant revision rates have been used to recommend and justify use of cheaper cemented total hip implants. Our investigations additionally consider mortality rates and suggest a potentially higher mortality rate with cemented total hip replacements, which merits further investigation.

Project description:Background: In 2013, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) released a revised guideline on statin therapy initiation. The guideline included a 10-year risk calculation based on regression modeling, which made hand calculation infeasible. Compliance to the guideline has been suboptimal, as many patients were recommended but not prescribed statin therapy. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools may improve statin guideline compliance. Few statin guideline CDS tools evaluated clinical outcome.Objectives: We determined if use of a CDS tool, the statin macro, was associated with increased 2013 ACC/AHA statin guideline compliance at the level of statin prescription versus no statin prescription. We did not determine if each patient's statin prescription met ACC/AHA 2013 therapy intensity recommendations (high vs. moderate vs. low).Methods: The authors developed a clinician-initiated, EHR-embedded statin macro command ("statin macro") that displayed the 2013 ACC/AHA statin guideline recommendation in the electronic health record documentation. We included patients who had a primary care visit during the study period (January 1-June 30, 2016), were eligible for statin therapy based on the ACC/AHA guideline prior to the study period, and were not prescribed statin therapy prior to the study period. We tested the association of macro usage and statin therapy prescription during the study period using relative risk and mixed effect logistic regression.Results: Subjects included 11,877 patients seen in primary care, who were retrospectively recommended statin therapy at study initiation based on the ACC/AHA guideline, but who had not received statin therapy. During the study period, 125 clinicians used the statin macro command for 389 of the 11,877 patients (3.2%). Of the 389 patients for whom that statin macro was used, 108 patients (28%) had a statin prescribed during the study period. Of the 11,488 for whom the statin macro was not used, 1,360 (13%) patients received a clinician-prescribed statin (relative risk 2.3, p?<?0.001). Controlling for patient covariates and clinicians, statin macro usage was significantly associated with statin therapy prescription (odds ratio 2.86, p?<?0.001).Conclusion: Although the statin macro had low uptake, its use was associated with a greater rate of statin prescriptions (dosage not determined) for patients whom 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines required statin therapy.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the association between antidepressant treatment and risk of several potential adverse outcomes in older people with depression and to examine risks by class of antidepressant, duration of use, and dose.DesignCohort study of people aged 65 and over diagnosed as having depression.Setting570 general practices in the United Kingdom supplying data to the QResearch primary care database.Participants60,746 patients diagnosed as having a new episode of depression between the ages of 65 and 100 years from 1 January 1996 to 31 December 2007 and followed up until 31 December 2008.Main outcome measuresHazard ratios associated with antidepressant use for all cause mortality, attempted suicide/self harm, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, falls, fractures, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, epilepsy/seizures, road traffic accidents, adverse drug reactions, and hyponatraemia, adjusted for a range of potential confounding variables. Hazard ratios were calculated for antidepressant class (tricyclic and related antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, other antidepressants), dose, and duration of use and for commonly prescribed individual drugs.Results54,038 (89.0%) patients received at least one prescription for an antidepressant during follow-up. A total of 1,398,359 antidepressant prescriptions were issued: 764,659 (54.7%) for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 442,192 (31.6%) for tricyclic antidepressants, 2203 (0.2%) for monoamine oxidase inhibitors, and 189,305 (13.5%) for the group of other antidepressants. The associations with the adverse outcomes differed significantly between the antidepressant classes for seven outcomes. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were associated with the highest adjusted hazard ratios for falls (1.66, 95% confidence interval 1.58 to 1.73) and hyponatraemia (1.52, 1.33 to 1.75) compared with when antidepressants were not being used. The group of other antidepressants was associated with the highest adjusted hazard ratios for all cause mortality (1.66, 1.56 to 1.77), attempted suicide/self harm (5.16, 3.90 to 6.83), stroke/transient ischaemic attack (1.37, 1.22 to 1.55), fracture (1.64, 1.46 to 1.84), and epilepsy/seizures (2.24, 1.60 to 3.15), compared with when antidepressants were not being used. Tricyclic antidepressants did not have the highest hazard ratio for any of the outcomes. Significantly different associations also existed between the individual drugs for the same seven outcomes; trazodone (tricyclic antidepressant), mirtazapine, and venlafaxine (both in the group of other antidepressants) were associated with the highest rates for some of these outcomes. Absolute risks over 1 year for all cause mortality were 7.04% for patients while not taking antidepressants, 8.12% for those taking tricyclic antidepressants, 10.61% for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and 11.43% for other antidepressants.ConclusionsSelective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and drugs in the group of other antidepressants were associated with an increased risk of several adverse outcomes compared with tricyclic antidepressants. Among individual drugs, trazodone, mirtazapine, and venlafaxine were associated with the highest risks for some outcomes. As this is an observational study, it is susceptible to confounding by indication, channelling bias, and residual confounding, so differences in characteristics between patients prescribed different antidepressant drugs that could account for some of the associations between the drugs and the adverse outcomes may remain. Further research is needed to confirm these findings, but the risks and benefits of different antidepressants should be carefully evaluated when these drugs are prescribed to older people.

Project description:BackgroundWith antidepressants (ADs) having minimal therapeutic effects during the initial weeks of treatment, benzodiazepines (BZDs) are concomitantly used to alleviate depressive symptoms of insomnia or anxiety. However, with mortality risks associated with this concomitant use yet to be examined, it remains unclear as to whether this concomitant therapy offers any benefits in treating depression.MethodsWe conducted a population-based cohort study using South Korea's nationwide healthcare database from 2002 to 2017. Of 2.6 million patients with depression, we identified 612,729 patients with incident depression and newly prescribed ADs or BZDs, by excluding those with a record of diagnosis or prescription within the 2 years prior to their incident diagnosis. We classified our study cohort into two discrete groups depending on the type of AD treatment received within 6 months of incident diagnosis-AD monotherapy and AD plus BZD (AD+BZD) therapy. We matched our study cohort in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores to balance baseline characteristics and obtain comparability among groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and patients were followed until the earliest of outcome occurrence or end of the study period. We conducted multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to estimate adjusted hazards ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of mortality associated with AD+BZD therapy versus AD monotherapy.ResultsThe propensity score-matched cohort had 519,780 patients with 259,890 patients in each group, where all baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. Compared to AD monotherapy, AD+BZD therapy was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.06).ConclusionsConcomitantly initiating BZDs with ADs was associated with a moderately increased risk of mortality. Clinicians should therefore exercise caution when deciding to co-prescribe BZDs with ADs in treating depression, as associated risks were observed.