What predicts response to sertraline for people with depression in primary care? a secondary data analysis of moderators in the PANDA trial.

PURPOSE: Antidepressants are a first-line treatment for depression, yet many patients do not respond. There is a need to understand which patients have greater treatment response but there is little research on patient characteristics that moderate the effectiveness of antidepressants. This study examined potential moderators of response to antidepressant treatment. METHODS: The PANDA trial investigated the clinical effectiveness of sertraline (n = 326) compared with placebo (n = 329) in primary care patients with depressive symptoms. We investigated 11 potential moderators of treatment effect (age, employment, suicidal ideation, marital status, financial difficulty, education, social support, family history of depression, life events, health and past antidepressant use). Using multiple linear regression, we investigated the appropriate interaction term for each of these potential moderators with treatment as allocated. RESULTS: Family history of depression was the only variable with weak evidence of effect modification (p-value for interaction = 0.048), such that those with no family history of depression may have greater benefit from antidepressant treatment. We found no evidence of effect modification (p-value for interactions≥0.29) by any of the other ten variables. CONCLUSION: Evidence for treatment moderators was extremely limited, supporting an approach of continuing discuss antidepressant treatment with all patients presenting with moderate to severe depressive symptoms.

Rise in prescribing for anxiety in UK primary care between 2003 and 2018: a population-based cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about trends in prescribing of anxiolytics (antidepressants, benzodiazepines, beta-blockers, anticonvulsants, and antipsychotics) for treatment of anxiety. Several changes may have affected prescribing in recent years, including changes in clinical guidance. AIM: To examine trends in prescribing for anxiety in UK primary care between 2003 and 2018. DESIGN AND SETTING: A population-based cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) data. METHOD: Analysis of data from adults (n = 2 569 153) registered at CPRD practices between 2003 and 2018. Prevalence and incidence rates were calculated for prescriptions of any anxiolytic and also for each drug class. Treatment duration was also examined. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2018, prevalence of any anxiolytic prescription increased from 24.9/1000 person-years-at-risk (PYAR) to 43.6/1000 PYAR, driven by increases in those starting treatment, rather than more long-term use. Between 2003 and 2006, incidence of any anxiolytic prescription decreased from 12.8/1000 PYAR to 10.0/1000 PYAR; after which incidence rose to 13.1/1000 PYAR in 2018. Similar trends were seen for antidepressant prescriptions. Incident beta-blocker prescribing increased over the 16 years, whereas incident benzodiazepine prescriptions decreased. Long-term prescribing of benzodiazepines declined, yet 44% of prescriptions in 2017 were longer than the recommended 4 weeks. Incident prescriptions in each drug class have risen substantially in young adults in recent years. CONCLUSION: Recent increases in incident prescribing, especially in young adults, may reflect better detection of anxiety, increasing acceptability of medication, or an earlier unmet need. However, some prescribing is not based on robust evidence of effectiveness, may contradict guidelines, and there is limited evidence on the overall impact associated with taking antidepressants long term. As such, there may be unintended harm.

Trends in the recording of anxiety in UK primary care: a multi-method approach.

PURPOSE: Anxiety disorders are common. Between 1998 and 2008, in the UK, GP recording of anxiety symptoms increased, but the recording of anxiety disorders decreased. We do not know whether such trends have continued. This study examined recent trends in the recording of anxiety and explored factors that may influence GPs' coding of anxiety. METHODS: We used data from adults (n = 2,569,153) registered with UK general practices (n = 176) that contributed to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 2003 and 2018. Incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for recorded anxiety symptoms and diagnoses and were stratified by age and gender. Joinpoint regression was used to estimate the years trends changed. In addition, in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 GPs to explore their views and management of anxiety. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: The incidence of anxiety symptoms rose from 6.2/1000 person-years at risk (PYAR) in 2003 to 14.7/1000 PYAR in 2018. Between 2003 and 2008, the incidence of anxiety diagnoses fell from 13.2 to 10.1/1000 PYAR; markedly increasing between 2013 and 2018 to 15.3/1000 PYAR. GPs mentioned that they preferred using symptom codes to diagnostic codes to avoid assigning potentially stigmatising or unhelpful labels, and commented on a rise in anxiety in recent years, especially in young adults. CONCLUSION: Recent increases in the recording of both anxiety diagnoses and symptoms may reflect increased presentation to primary care, especially in young adults. There is a clear need to understand the reasons for this, and this knowledge may be critical in the prevention and treatment of anxiety.

GPs' and patients' views on the value of diagnosing anxiety disorders in primary care: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK between 1998 and 2008, GPs' recording of anxiety symptoms increased, but their recording of anxiety disorders decreased. The reason for this decline is not clear, nor are the treatment implications for primary care patients. AIM: To understand GPs' and patients' views on the value of diagnosing anxiety disorders in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 GPs and 20 patients, purposively sampled from GP practices in Bristol and the surrounding areas. METHOD: Interviews were held either in person or by telephone. A topic guide was used to ensure consistency across the interviews. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: GPs reported preferring to use symptom rather than diagnostic codes in order to avoid assigning potentially stigmatising labels, and because they felt diagnostic codes could encourage some patients to adopt a 'sick role'. In addition, their decision to use a diagnostic code depended on symptom severity and chronicity, and these were hard to establish in a time-limited clinical consultation. In contrast, patients commented that receiving a diagnosis helped them to understand their symptoms, and encouraged them to engage with treatment. CONCLUSION: GPs may be reluctant to diagnose an anxiety disorder, but patients can find a diagnosis helpful in terms of understanding their symptoms and the need for treatment. As limited consultation time can discourage discussions between GPs and patients, followup appointments and continuity of care may be particularly important for the management of anxiety in primary care.