Long-term antidepressant use: a qualitative study on perspectives of patients and GPs in primary care

Background Antidepressant use is often prolonged in patients with anxiety and/or depressive disorder(s) compared with recommendations in treatment guidelines to discontinue after sustained remission. Aim To unravel the motivations of patients and GPs causing long-term antidepressant use and to gain insight into possibilities to prevent unnecessary long-term use. Design and setting Qualitative study using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with patients and GPs in the Netherlands. Method Patients with anxiety and/or depressive disorder(s) (n = 38) and GPs (n = 26) were interviewed. Innovatively, the interplay between patients and their GPs was also investigated by means of patient-GP dyads (n = 20). Results The motives and barriers of patients and GPs to continue or discontinue antidepressants were related to the availability of supportive guidance during discontinuation, the personal circumstances of the patient, and considerations of the patient or GP. Importantly, dyads indicated a large variation in policies of general practices around long-term use and continuation or discontinuation of antidepressants. Dyads further indicated that patients and GPs seemed unaware of each other's (mismatching) expectations regarding responsibility to initiate discussing continuation or discontinuation. Conclusion Although motives and barriers to antidepressant continuation or discontinuation were related to the same themes for patients and GPs, dyads indicated discrepancies between them. Discussion between patients and GPs about antidepressant use and continuation or discontinuation may help clarify mutual expectations and opinions. Agreements between a patient and their GP can be included in a patient-tailored treatment plan

Is the beck anxiety inventory a good tool to assess the severity of anxiety? A primary care study in The Netherlands study of depression and anxiety (NESDA)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Appropriate management of anxiety disorders in primary care requires clinical assessment and monitoring of the severity of the anxiety. This study focuses on the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) as a severity indicator for anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders (social phobia, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, agoraphobia or generalized anxiety disorder), depressive disorders or no disorder (controls).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were 1601 primary care patients participating in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Regression analyses were used to compare the mean BAI scores of the different diagnostic groups and to correct for age and gender.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients with any anxiety disorder had a significantly higher mean score than the controls. A significantly higher score was found for patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia compared to patients with agoraphobia only or social phobia only. BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid anxiety disorder and in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid depressive disorder were significantly higher than BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder alone or patients with a depressive disorder alone. Depressed and anxious patients did not differ significantly in their mean scores.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results suggest that the BAI may be used as a severity indicator of anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders. However, because the instrument seems to reflect the severity of depression as well, it is not a suitable instrument to discriminate between anxiety and depression in a primary care population.</p

Collaborative stepped care for anxiety disorders in primary care: aims and design of a randomized controlled trial

Background. Panic disorder (PD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) are two of the most disabling and costly anxiety disorders seen in primary care. However, treatment quality of these disorders in primary care generally falls beneath the standard of international guidelines. Collaborative stepped care is recommended for improving treatment of anxiety disorders, but cost-effectiveness of such an intervention has not yet been assessed in primary care. This article describes the aims and design of a study that is currently underway. The aim of this study is to evaluate effects and costs of a collaborative stepped care approach in the primary care setting for patients with PD and GAD compared with care as usual. Methods/design. The study is a two armed, cluster randomized controlled trial. Care managers and their primary care practices will be randomized to deliver either collaborative stepped care (CSC) or care as usual (CAU). In the CSC group a general practitioner, care manager and psychiatrist work together in a collaborative care framework. Stepped care is provided in three steps: 1) guided self-help, 2) cognitive behavioral therapy and 3) antidepressant medication. Primary care patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of PD and/or GAD will be included. 134 completers are needed to attain sufficient power to show a clinically significant effect of 1/2 SD on the primary outcome measure, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). Data on anxiety symptoms, mental and physical health, quality of life, health resource use and productivity will be collected at baseline and after three, six, nine and twelve months. Discussion. It is hypothesized that the collaborative stepped care intervention will be more cost-effective than care as usual. The pragmatic design of this study will enable the researchers to evaluate what is possible in real clinical practice, rather than under ideal circumstances. Many requirements for a high quality trial are being met. Results of this study will contribute to treatment options for GAD and PD in the primary care setting. Results will become available in 2011. Trial registration. NTR1071

The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): a validation study of a multidimensional self-report questionnaire to assess distress, depression, anxiety and somatization

BACKGROUND: The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire that has been developed in primary care to distinguish non-specific general distress from depression, anxiety and somatization. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate its criterion and construct validity. METHODS: Data from 10 different primary care studies have been used. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the 4DSQ scores with clinical diagnoses, the GPs' diagnosis of any psychosocial problem for Distress, standardised psychiatric diagnoses for Depression and Anxiety, and GPs' suspicion of somatization for Somatization. ROC analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations. Construct validity was evaluated by investigating the inter-correlations between the scales, the factorial structure, the associations with other symptom questionnaires, and the associations with stress, personality and social functioning. The factorial structure of the 4DSQ was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The associations with other questionnaires were assessed with Pearson correlations and regression analyses. RESULTS: Regarding criterion validity, the Distress scale was associated with any psychosocial diagnosis (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.79), the Depression scale was associated with major depression (AUC = 0.83), the Anxiety scale was associated with anxiety disorder (AUC = 0.66), and the Somatization scale was associated with the GPs' suspicion of somatization (AUC = 0.65). Regarding the construct validity, the 4DSQ scales appeared to have considerable inter-correlations (r = 0.35-0.71). However, 30–40% of the variance of each scale was unique for that scale. CFA confirmed the 4-factor structure with a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.92. The 4DSQ scales correlated with most other questionnaires measuring corresponding constructs. However, the 4DSQ Distress scale appeared to correlate with some other depression scales more than the 4DSQ Depression scale. Measures of stress (i.e. life events, psychosocial problems, and work stress) were mainly associated with Distress, while Distress, in turn, was mainly associated with psychosocial dysfunctioning, including sick leave. CONCLUSION: The 4DSQ seems to be a valid self-report questionnaire to measure distress, depression, anxiety and somatization in primary care patients. The 4DSQ Distress scale appears to measure the most general, most common, expression of psychological problems

Prevention of anxiety disorders in primary care: A feasibility study

Abstract Background Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent in primary care and cause a substantial burden of disease. Screening on risk status, followed by preventive interventions in those at risk may prevent the onset of anxiety disorders, and thereby reduce the disease burden. The willingness to participate in screening and interventions is crucial for the scope of preventive strategies, but unknown. This feasibility study, therefore, investigated participation rates of screening and preventive services for anxiety disorders in primary care, and explored reasons to refrain from screening. Methods In three general practices, screening was offered to individuals visiting their general practitioner (total n = 2454). To assess risk status, a 10-item questionnaire was followed by a telephone interview (including the CIDI) when scoring above a predefined threshold. Preventive services were offered to those at risk. Participation rates for screening and preventive services for anxiety disorders were assessed. Those not willing to be screened were asked for their main reason to refrain from screening. Results Of all individuals, 17.3% participated in initial screening, and of those with a possible risk status, 56.0% continued screening. In 30.1% of those assessed, a risk status to develop an anxiety disorder was verified. Of these, 22.6% already received some form of mental health treatment and 38.7% of them agreed to participate in a preventive intervention and were referred. The most frequently mentioned reasons to refrain from screening were the emotional burden associated with elevated risk status, the assumption not to be at risk, and a lack of motivation to act upon an elevated risk status by using preventive services. Conclusions Screening in general practice, followed by offering services to prevent anxiety disorders in those at risk did not appear to be a feasible strategy due to low participation rates. To enable the development of feasible and cost-effective preventive strategies, exploring the reasons of low participation rates, considering involving general practitioners in preventive strategies, and looking at preventive strategies in somatic health care with proven feasibility may be helpful.</p

Prevalence and course of subthreshold anxiety disorder in the general population:: A three-year follow-up study

Background This study examined the prevalence, course and risk indicators of subthreshold anxiety disorder to determine the necessity and possible risk indicators for interventions. Methods Data were derived from the ‘Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2’ (NEMESIS-2), a psychiatric epidemiological cohort study among the general population (n = 4528). This study assessed prevalence, characteristics, and three-year course of subthreshold anxiety disorder (n = 521) in adults, and compared them to a no anxiety group (n = 3832) and an anxiety disorder group (n = 175). Risk indicators for persistent and progressive subthreshold anxiety disorder were also explored, including socio-demographics, vulnerability factors, psychopathology, physical health and functioning. Results The three-year prevalence of subthreshold anxiety disorder was 11.4%. At three-year follow-up, 57.3% had improved, 29.0% had persistent subthreshold anxiety disorder and 13.8% had progressed to a full-blown anxiety disorder. Prevalence, characteristics and course of subthreshold anxiety disorder were in between both comparison groups. Risk indicators for persistent course partly overlapped with those for progressive course and included vulnerability and psychopathological factors, and diminished functioning. Limitations Course analysis were restricted to the development of anxiety disorders, other mental disorders were not assessed. Moreover, due to the naturalistic design of the study the impact of treatment on course cannot be assessed. Conclusions Subthreshold anxiety disorder is relatively prevalent and at three-year follow-up a substantial part of respondents experienced persistent symptoms or had progressed into an anxiety disorder. Risk indicators like reduced functioning may help to identify these persons for (preventative) treatment and hence reduce functional limitations and disease burden

Treatment of anxiety disorders in primary care practice a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are prevalent in primary care. Psychological treatment is effective but time-consuming, and there are waiting lists for secondary care. Interest has therefore grown in developing guidelines for treatment that would be feasible in primary care. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and feasibility of guided self-help, the Anxiety Disorder Guidelines of the Netherlands College of General Practitioners and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled study lasting 12 weeks with follow-up at 3 and 9 months for primary care patients with panic disorder and/or generalised anxiety disorder. SETTING: The first two forms of treatment were carried out by 46 GPs who were randomly assigned to one or the other form. CBT was carried out by cognitive behaviour therapists in a psychiatric outpatient clinic. METHOD: Participants (n = 154) were randomly assigned to one of the three forms of treatment. The main outcome measure used was the state subscale of the Spielberger Anxiety Inventory. RESULTS: All three forms of treatment gave significant improvement between pre-test and post-test, and this improvement remained stable between post-test and the follow-ups. The results obtained with the three treatment forms did not differ significantly over time. The feasibility of the Anxiety Disorder Guidelines was low compared with that of guided self-help. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that primary care patients with prevalent anxiety disorders for whom the GP does not find referral necessary can be adequately treated by the GP. Psychiatric outpatient clinic referral does not give superior results. Guided self-help is easier for the GP to carry out than a less highly-structured treatment like that laid down in the Anxiety Disorder Guidelines

Feasibility and impact of data-driven learning within the suicide prevention action network of thirteen specialist mental healthcare institutions (SUPRANET Care) in the Netherlands: A study protocol

Introduction Improvement of the quality and safety of care is associated with lower suicide rates among mental healthcare patients. In The Netherlands, about 40% of all people that die by suicide is in specialist mental healthcare. Unfortunately, the degree of implementation of suicide prevention policies and best practices within Dutch mental healthcare services is variable. Sharing and comparing outcome and performance data in confidential networks of professionals working in different organisations can be effective in reducing practice variability within and across organisations and improving quality of care. Methods and analysis Using formats of professional networks to improve surgical care (Dutch Initiative for Clinical Auditing) and somatic intensive care (National Intensive Care Evaluation), 113 Suicide Prevention has taken the lead in the formation of a Suicide Prevention Action Network (SUPRANET Care), with at present 13 large Dutch specialist mental health institutions. Data on suicide, suicide attempts and their determinants as well as consumer care policies and practices are collected biannually, after consensus rounds in which key professionals define what data are relevant to collect, how it is operationalised, retrieved and will be analysed. To evaluate the impact of SUPRANET Care, standardised suicide rates will be calculated adjusted for confounding factors. Second, the extent to which suicide attempts are being registered will be analysed with the suicide attempt data. Finally, professionals' knowledge, attitude and adherence to suicide prevention guidelines will be measured with an extended version of the Professionals In Training to STOP suicide survey. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, The Netherlands. This study does not fall under the scope of the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) or the General Data Protection Regulation as stated by the Dutch Data Protection Authority because data are collected on an aggregated level

Usage Intensity of a Relapse Prevention Program and Its Relation to Symptom Severity in Remitted Patients With Anxiety and Depression: Pre-Post Study

Background: Given that relapse is common in patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders, relapse prevention is needed in the maintenance phase. Although existing psychological relapse prevention interventions have proven to be effective, they are not explicitly based on patients’ preferences. Hence, we developed a blended relapse prevention program based on patients’ preferences, which was delivered in primary care practices by mental health professionals (MHPs). This program comprises contact with MHPs, completion of core and optional online modules (including a relapse prevention plan), and keeping a mood and anxiety diary in which patients can monitor their symptoms. Objective: The aims of this study were to provide insight into (1) usage intensity of the program (over time), (2) the course of symptoms during the 9 months of the study, and (3) the association between usage intensity and the course of symptoms. Methods: The Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression (GET READY) program was guided by 54 MHPs working in primary care practices. Patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including anxiety and depressive symptoms, were collected via questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 6, and 9 months. Log data were collected to assess the usage intensity of the program. Results: A total of 113 patients participated in the study. Twenty-seven patients (23.9%) met the criteria for the minimal usage intensity measure. The core modules were used by ≥70% of the patients, while the optional modules were used by <40% of the patients. Usage decreased quickly over time. Anxiety and depressive symptoms remained stable across the total sample; a minority of 15% (12/79) of patients experienced a relapse in their anxiety symptoms, while 10% (8/79) experienced a relapse in their depressive symptoms. Generalized estimating equations analysis indicated a significant association between more frequent face-to-face contact with the MHPs and an increase in both anxiety symptoms (β=.84, 95% CI .39-1.29) and depressive symptoms (β=1.12, 95% CI 0.45-1.79). Diary entries and the number of completed modules were not significantly associated with the course of symptoms

Cannabidiol enhancement of exposure therapy in treatment refractory patients with social anxiety disorder and panic disorder with agoraphobia: A randomised controlled trial

Preclinical research suggests that enhancing CB1 receptor agonism may improve fear extinction. In order to translate this knowledge into a clinical application we examined whether cannabidiol (CBD), a hydrolysis inhibitor of the endogenous CB1 receptor agonist anandamide (AEA), would enhance the effects of exposure therapy in treatment refractory patients with anxiety disorders. Patients with panic disorder with agoraphobia or social anxiety disorder were recruited for a double-blind parallel randomised controlled trial at three mental health care centres in the Netherlands. Eight therapist-assisted exposure in vivo sessions (weekly, outpatient) were augmented with 300 mg oral CBD (n = 39) or placebo (n = 41). The Fear Questionnaire (FQ) was assessed at baseline, mid- and post-treatment, and at 3 and 6 months follow-up. Primary analyses were on an intent-to-treat basis. No differences were found in treatment outcome over time between CBD and placebo on FQ scores, neither across (β = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.60; 1.25]) nor within diagnosis groups (β = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.62; 1.40]). In contrast to our hypotheses, CBD augmentation did not enhance early treatment response, within-session fear extinction or extinction learning. Incidence of adverse effects was equal in the CBD (n = 4, 10.3%) and placebo condition (n = 6, 15.4%). In this first clinical trial examining CBD as an adjunctive therapy in anxiety disorders, CBD did not improve treatment outcome. Future clinical trials may investigate different dosage regimens