Anxiety management in Australian general practice: an analysis of encounters from 2006 - 2016.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent mental health conditions managed predominantly by general practitioners (GPs). This study aimed to examine the management of anxiety by Australian GPs since the introduction of the Better Access to Psychiatrists, Psychologists and General Practitioners initiative in 2006. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health data on GP encounters for anxiety from 2006 to 2016 (N = 28,784). We calculated point estimates and used multivariate logistic regression to explore the effect of GP and patient characteristics on rates and types of management. RESULTS: The management rate of anxiety increased from 2.3% of GP encounters in 2006 to 3.2% in 2016. Over the 10-year period, increases were seen in referrals to psychologists (AOR = 1.09, 95%CI = 1.07-1.11, p < .0001) and selective serotonin / serotonin-noradrenalin reuptake inhibitors (AOR = 1.05, 95%CI = 1.03-1.06, p < .0001), and benzodiazepines decreased (AOR = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.92-0.95, p < .0001). Systematic differences in management were found for patient and GP characteristics, including high rates of benzodiazepines in certain groups. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety is accounting for more of the GP workload, year on year. GP management of anxiety has become more closely aligned with practice guidelines since 2006. However, high rates of benzodiazepine prescribing in certain groups remains a concern. Further research is needed into GP treatment decision making for anxiety.

Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent mental health conditions and are managed predominantly in primary care. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological and pharmacological treatments in countries with universal healthcare, and investigated the influence of treatment provider on the efficacy of psychological treatment. METHOD: PubMed, Cochrane, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched in April 2017 for controlled studies of evidence-based anxiety treatment in adults in primary care, published in English since 1997. Searches were repeated in April 2020. We synthesised results using a combination of meta-analysis and narrative methods. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects multi-level model to account for intercorrelation between effects contributed different treatment arms of the same study. Moderator variables were explored using meta-regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 19 articles (from an initial 2,247) reporting 18 studies were included. Meta-analysis including ten studies (n = 1,308) found a pooled effect size of g = 1.16 (95%CI = 0.63 - 1.69) for psychological treatment compared to waitlist control, and no significant effect compared to care as usual (p = .225). Substantial heterogeneity was present (I2 = 81.25). Specialist treatment produced large effects compared to both waitlist control (g = 1.46, 95%CI = 0.96 - 1.96) and care as usual (g = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.27 - 1.25). Treatment provided by non-specialists was only superior to waitlist control (g = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.31 - 1.28). We identified relatively few studies (n = 4) of medications, which reported small to moderate effects for SSRI/SNRI medications and hydroxyzine. The quality of included studies was variable and most studies had at least "unclear" risk of bias in one or more key domains. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological treatments for anxiety are effective in primary care and are more effective when provided by a specialist (psychologist or clinical psychologist) than a non-specialist (GP, nurse, trainee). However, non-specialists provide effective treatment compared with no care at all. Limited research into the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in primary care needs to be considered carefully by prescribers TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018050659.

Localization of phosphorylated CK2alpha to the mitotic spindle requires the peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1.

CK2 is a serine/threonine kinase with many substrates, largely unknown modes of regulation and essential roles in mitotic progression. CK2α, a catalytic subunit of CK2, is phosphorylated in mitosis, and here we examine the effect of phosphorylation on CK2α localization. Using phosphospecific antibodies, we show that CK2α localizes to the mitotic spindle in a phosphorylation-dependent manner. Mitotic spindle localization requires the unique C-terminus of CK2α, and involves a novel regulatory mechanism in which phosphorylation of CK2α facilitates binding to the peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1, which is required for CK2α mitotic spindle localization. This could explain how the constitutive activity of CK2α might be targeted towards mitotic substrates. Furthermore, because Pin1 has many important spindle substrates, this might represent a general mechanism for localization of mitotic signalling proteins.