[A computerised clinical decision-support system for the management of depression in Primary Care]

Antidepressants overuse in primary care: Prescription trends between 2010 and 2019 in Catalonia

INTRODUCTION

There has been an increase in the prescription of antidepressants (AD) in primary care (PC). However, it is unclear whether this was explained by a rise in diagnoses with an indication for AD. We investigated the changes in frequency and the variables associated with AD prescription in Catalonia, Spain.

METHODS

We retrieved AD prescription, sociodemographic, and health-related data using individual electronic health records from a population-representative sample (N=947.698) attending PC between 2010 and 2019. Prescription of AD was calculated using DHD (Defined Daily Doses per 1000 inhabitants/day). We compared cumulative changes in DHD with cumulative changes in diagnoses with an indication for AD during the study period. We used Poisson regression to examine sociodemographic and health-related variables associated with AD prescription.

RESULTS

Both AD prescription and mental health diagnoses with an indication for AD gradually increased. At the end of the study period, DHD of AD prescriptions and mental health diagnoses with an indication for AD reached cumulative increases of 404% and 49% respectively. Female sex (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=2.83), older age (IRR=25.43), and lower socio-economic status (IRR=1.35) were significantly associated with increased risk of being prescribed an AD.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results from a large and representative cohort of patients confirm a steady increase of AD prescriptions that is not explained by a parallel increase in mental health diagnoses with an indication for AD. A trend on AD off-label and over-prescriptions in the PC system in Catalonia can be inferred from this dissociation.

Cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care program for managing major depression and chronic musculoskeletal pain in primary care: Economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We designed a collaborative care program for the integrated management of chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression, which frequently coexist in primary care patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this program compared with care as usual.

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial. Results were monitored over a 12-month period. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We performed cost-effectiveness analyses from the perspectives of the healthcare system and society using an intention-to-treat approach with imputation of missing values.

RESULTS

We evaluated 328 patients (167 in the intervention group and 161 in the control group) with chronic musculoskeletal pain and major depression at baseline. From the healthcare system perspective, the mean incremental cost was €234 (p = .17) and the mean incremental effectiveness was 0.009 QALYs (p = .66), resulting in an ICER of €23,989/QALY. Costs from the societal perspective were €235 (p = .16), yielding an ICER of €24,102/QALY. These estimates were associated with a high degree of uncertainty illustrated on the cost-effectiveness plane.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our expectations, the collaborative care program had no significant effects on health status, and although the additional costs of implementing the program compared with care as usual were not high, we were unable to demonstrate a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio, largely due to the high degree of uncertainty surrounding the estimates.

Effectiveness of a collaborative care intervention for managing major depression and chronic musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Depression and chronic musculoskeletal pain commonly occur as comorbid conditions, which increases their negative effects on health outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the DROP (DepRessiOn and Pain) programme designed for the management of major depression and chronic musculoskeletal pain in primary care.

METHODS

A cluster-randomised controlled trial was carried out between June 2015 and December 2017 with 328 patients with major depression and chronic musculoskeletal pain, randomly allocated to either intervention arm or usual care arm. The intervention included care management, optimised management of depression, and a psychoeducational programme. Outcomes were monitored using blinded interviews over a 12-month period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02605278 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

RESULTS

After 12 months, 274 patients were evaluated (83.5% participation). The severity of depression (Hopkins Symptom Checklist score) was 0.23 points lower in the intervention arm [1.11 vs. 1.34; CI95% = -0.42 to -0.04]. Intervention arm's response rate to antidepressant treatment was 18.9% higher [39.6% vs. 20.7%; OR = 2.74; CI95% = 1.12-6.67] and its remission rate for depression was 9.0% higher [20.1% vs. 11.1%; OR = 2.13; CI95% = 0.94-4.85] compared to the usual care arm. There were no significant differences between the two arms in terms of pain severity (Brief Pain Inventory severity score) [6.23 vs. 6.66; difference = -0.39; CI95% = -1.13-0.35] or pain response rate [18.7% vs. 18.5%; OR = 1.02; CI95% = 0.46-2.26].

LIMITATIONS

This is a pragmatic study, and poor adherence to the programme by patients and physicians was a main limitation.

CONCLUSION

The programme improves clinical outcomes for depression, although no clinical benefits were seen for pain.

Development and assessment of an active strategy for the implementation of a collaborative care approach for depression in primary care (the INDI·i project)

Background

Primary care is the principal clinical setting for the management of depression. However, significant shortcomings have been detected in its diagnosis and clinical management, as well as in patient outcomes. We developed the INDI collaborative care model to improve the management of depression in primary care. This intervention has been favorably evaluated in terms of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness in a clinical trial. Our aim is to bring this intervention from the scientific context into clinical practice.

Methods

Objective: To test for the feasibility and impact of a strategy for implementing the INDI model for depression in primary care.

Design: A quasi-experiment conducted in primary care. Several areas will be established to implement the new program and other, comparable areas will serve as control group. The study constitutes the preliminary phase preceding generalization of the model in the Catalan public healthcare system.

Participants: The target population of the intervention are patients with major depression. The implementation strategy will also involve healthcare professionals, primary care centers, as well as management departments and the healthcare organization itself in the geographical areas where the study will be conducted: Camp de Tarragona and Vallès Occidental (Catalonia).

Intervention: The INDI model is a program for improving the management of depression involving clinical, instructional, and organizational interventions including the participation of nurses as care managers, the efficacy and efficiency of which has been proven in a clinical trial. We will design an active implementation strategy for this model based on the PARIHS (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) framework.

Measures: Qualitative and quantitative measures will be used to evaluate variables related to the successful implementation of the model: acceptability, utility, penetration, sustainability, and clinical impact.

Discussion

This project tests the transferability of a healthcare intervention supported by scientific research to clinical practice. If implementation is successful in this experimental phase, we will use the information and experience obtained to propose and plan the generalization of the INDI model for depression in the Catalan healthcare system. We expect the program to benefit patients, the healthcare system, and society.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03285659; Registered 12th September, 2017.