Brexit and the European National Health Service England Workforce: A Quantitative Analysis of Doctors' Perceived Professional Impact and Intentions to Leave the United Kingdom.

Background: Although survey data suggest that Brexit has negatively influenced European doctors' decisions to remain in the United Kingdom, this is the first quantitative study to use multivariate analysis to explore this relationship. Objective: To assess how Brexit relates to doctors' migration intentions in relation to their feelings that Brexit has impacted their professional life, national identity, and demographic factors. Method: We collected data from 59 self-reported EU/EEA/European identifying doctors working in the UK. We weighted results to the English National Health Service population in terms of gender, professional grade level and ethnicity and ran weighted regression analyses of respondents' plans (leaving, considering, not considering) and whether they reported Brexit influencing their decision-making. We then examined how stating that Brexit affected their career, national identity, and sex and age related to doctors' intentions to leave or stay. Findings: The more doctors agreed that Brexit had impacted their professional lives, the more likely they were to state they intended to leave the UK. We found doctors with increased levels of British identity less likely to leave than those with reduced British identity. Interestingly, we found that those with higher levels of European identity were less likely to leave but more sharply likely to consider leaving compared to those with lower levels of European identity. Conclusions: Respondents reported large professional impacts of Brexit. To retain these individuals in the British medical system, the NHS should provide financial and legal assistance for those applying for settled status and financial and other incentives comparable to what doctors could receive in EU health systems.

Brexit and European doctors' decisions to leave the United Kingdom: a qualitative analysis of free-text questionnaire comments.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative evidence suggests that Brexit has had a severe and negative impact on European doctors, with many medical staff leaving the UK. This study provides a detailed examination of European doctors' feelings towards Brexit, their intentions to leave the UK, and factors that may contribute to their potential decisions to migrate. METHODS: An online questionnaire which included three optional free-text questions explored self-identifying UK-based, European doctors' views of Brexit. The three questions prompted responses on how Brexit has impacted their personal lives, their professional lives, and their future migration decisions. Fifty-nine doctors participated in the questionnaire with 52 (88.1%) providing one or more responses to the three free-text questions. Twenty-seven doctors provided answers to all three free-text questions (51.9% of included sample). Thematic analysis was used to analyse this qualitative data. RESULTS: Brexit was reported by the majority of participants to have a profound impact, although some respondents felt it was too soon to assess the potential consequences. Five themes emerged including: feeling unwelcome in the UK, Brexit as racism, uncertainty on legal ability to work, strain on relationships, and in contrast, a current lack of concern about Brexit. CONCLUSIONS: To mitigate the adverse personal and professional impact of Brexit, healthcare providers should provide financial and legal support to doctors applying for settlement in the UK, ensure they are addressing issues of racial and ethnic inequality in hiring, promotion, and pay, and work towards making clinical work environments inclusive for all staff and patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of vortioxetine versus agomelatine, categorized by previous treatment, in patients with major depressive disorder switched after an inadequate response.

This study aimed to evaluate if efficacy and tolerability of switching to vortioxetine is independent of previous SSRI or SNRI treatment in patients who had been inadequately treated for their current major depressive episode. Patients from a double-blind, 12-week comparator study were randomized (1:1) to vortioxetine (10-20 mg/day) or agomelatine (25-50 mg/day). The pre-defined primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 8 in MADRS total score analyzed by MMRM. An ANCOVA-LOCF was conducted as a sensitivity analysis. These analyses were repeated in subgroups according to previous antidepressant treatment. In the overall population, vortioxetine (n = 252) was significantly superior to agomelatine (n = 241) by -2.2 MADRS points (p < 0.01) at week 8. ∼77% (n = 189/vortioxetine, n = 188/agomelatine) were previously treated with an SSRI (citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine, sertraline) and ∼23% (n = 62/vortioxetine, n = 52/agomelatine) with an SNRI (duloxetine, venlafaxine). Baseline characteristics were similar in all subgroups. Treatment differences (MMRM) in MADRS total score were -2.6 and -2.3 (n = 164/vortioxetine, n = 150/agomelatine) (p < 0.01) for patients switching from an SSRI and -1.8 and -1.5 (n = 56/vortioxetine, n = 40/agomelatine) (p > 0.05) from an SNRI at weeks 8 and 12, respectively; non-significant improvements were seen for each of the 6 previous antidepressants. Improvements in HAM-A, CGI-I, and EQ-5D scales were significant for the SSRI subgroup and non-significant for the SNRI subgroup. Withdrawal and adverse event rates were similar, regardless of previous SSRI or SNRI treatment. These subgroup analyses showed statistical superiority of vortioxetine to agomelatine in inadequate responders to SSRIs and statistically non-significant improvements in the smaller SNRI subgroup, while being equally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has the ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01488071.

The impact of antidepressant treatments on family functioning in adults with major depressive disorder: a post hoc comparison of vortioxetine and agomelatine.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited research on the impact of antidepressant treatment on family functioning. This study examines the impact of vortioxetine and agomelatine on family functioning using the Depression and Family Functioning Scale (DFFS). METHODS: The DFFS was included in REVIVE, a randomized, double-blind study of adults with major depressive disorder with inadequate response to antidepressant treatment who switched to vortioxetine or agomelatine. The prespecified DFFS analyses were performed using change from baseline to weeks 8 and 12, analyzed by mixed models for repeated measurements by treatment groups. Post hoc analyses compared DFFS scores for remitters and nonremitters. Patients were stratified into quartiles using DFFS scores, and scores on other clinical outcome assessments were compared. RESULTS: Sizeable improvements in DFFS scores were observed from baseline to week 8 (-10.8, -7.9 for vortioxetine and agomelatine, respectively), with further improvements at week 12 (-13.5, -11.0). Vortioxetine (n = 189) was superior to agomelatine (n = 187) by 2.9 DFFS points at week 8 (p < .01) and 2.5 points at week 12 (p < .05), and DFFS item-level improvements were also significantly greater for vortioxetine for 8 of 15 DFFS items at week 8 and 7 items at week 12. At week 8, remitters (n = 142) and nonremitters (n = 233) differed by 11 DFFS points; at week 12, remitters (n = 183) and nonremitters (n = 121) differed by almost 12 DFFS points. Patients stratified into baseline DFFS quartiles showed trends on clinical outcomes such that better family functioning was associated with better functional status and depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Vortioxetine was significantly superior to agomelatine in terms of family functioning and partner relationships, as well as social functioning, health status, and depression symptoms at weeks 8 and 12. Depressed patients with impaired family functioning showed worse overall functioning, health status, and depression symptoms, suggesting that more attention should be given to family functioning of depressed patients.

The safety and tolerability of vortioxetine: Analysis of data from randomized placebo-controlled trials and open-label extension studies.

The safety and tolerability of vortioxetine in adults with major depressive disorder was assessed. Tolerability was based on the nature, incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during acute (6/8) week treatment in 11 randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled short-term studies in major depressive disorder: six with an active reference. Symptoms following discontinuation were assessed through the Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms checklist in three studies. Long-term (⩽52 weeks) tolerability was evaluated in five open-label extension studies. Patients (n =5701) were acutely treated with either placebo (n=1817), vortioxetine (5-20mg/day; n=3018), venlafaxine XR (225mg/day; n=113) or duloxetine (60mg/day; n=753). The withdrawal rate due to TEAEs during treatment with vortioxetine (5-20mg/day) was 4.5-7.8%, compared with placebo (3.6%), venlafaxine XR (14.2%) or duloxetine (8.8%). Common TEAEs (incidence ⩾5% and >2 × placebo) with vortioxetine (5-20mg/day) were nausea (20.9-31.2%) and vomiting (2.9-6.5%). For vortioxetine (5-20mg/day), the incidence of TEAEs associated with insomnia was 2.0-5.1% versus 4.0% for placebo, and with sexual dysfunction 1.6-1.8% versus 1.0% for placebo. Discontinuation symptoms as assessed by the mean Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms total score after abrupt discontinuation were comparable to placebo in the first and second week. Vortioxetine had no effect relative to placebo on clinical laboratory parameters, body weight, heart rate or blood pressure. Vortioxetine showed no clinically relevant effect on ECG parameters, including the QTcF interval. In long-term treatment, no new types of TEAEs were seen; the mean weight gain was 0.7-0.8kg. Thus, vortioxetine (5-20mg/day) appears safe and generally well tolerated in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

A randomised, double-blind study in adults with major depressive disorder with an inadequate response to a single course of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor treatment switched to vortioxetine or agomelatine.

OBJECTIVE: This randomised, double-blind, 12-week study compared efficacy and tolerability of flexible-dose treatment with vortioxetine(10-20 mg/day) versus agomelatine (25-50 mg/day) in major depressive disorder patients with inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)/serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) monotherapy. METHODS: Patients were switched directly from SSRI/SNRI to vortioxetine or agomelatine. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 8 in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score analysed by mixed model for repeated measurements, using a noninferiority test followed by a superiority test. Secondary endpoints included response and remission rates, anxiety symptoms(Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale), Clinical Global Impression, overall functioning (Sheehan Disability Scale), health-related quality of life(EuroQol 5 Dimensions), productivity (work limitation questionnaire) and family functioning (Depression and Family Functioning Scale). RESULTS: Primary endpoint noninferiority was established and vortioxetine (n = 252) was superior to agomelatine (n = 241) by 2.2 MADRS points (p<0.01). Vortioxetine was also significantly superior in response and remission rates at weeks 8 and 12; MADRS, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression, Sheehan Disability Scale and EuroQol 5 Dimensions scores at week 4 onwards; work limitation questionnaire at week 8 and Depression and Family Functioning Scale at weeks 8 and 12. Fewer patients withdrew because of adverse events with vortioxetine (5.9% vs 9.5%). Adverse events (incidence ≥5%) were nausea, headache, dizziness and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: Vortioxetine was noninferior and significantly superior to agomelatine in major depressive disorder patients with previous inadequate response to a single course of SSRI/SNRI monotherapy. Vortioxetine was safe and well tolerated.