Follow-Up Treatment After Inpatient Therapy of Patients With Unipolar Depression-Compliance With the Guidelines?

No benefit of antidepressants in inpatient treatment of depression. A longitudinal, quasi-experimental field study

RATIONALE

Antidepressants (AD) are mostly considered indispensable for the treatment of major depression. The vast majority of depressive inpatients are treated with AD. However, there is a growing body of studies indicating that the effectiveness of AD is greatly overestimated due to methodological issues with the AD efficacy studies (e.g., publication bias, unintentional unblinding, confusion between withdrawal symptoms and relapse).

OBJECTIVES

The benefit of the additional use of AD in the inpatient treatment of depression with intensive cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has been investigated in a naturalistic design.

METHODS

Depressiveness was assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) during a preliminary interview (T0), at admission (T1), at discharge (T2), and at a 6-month follow-up (T3). Two study phases were compared: During Phase A, AD were recommended in accordance with the German guideline. In Phase B, AD were no longer recommended, and they were only prescribed upon explicit request from patients. In phase A (N = 574), 60.3% of all patients were taking AD at discharge. In Phase B (N = 424), 27.9% of patients were on AD at discharge. Apart from the difference in AD usage, the two treatment conditions were similar, and the samples did not significantly differ in terms of age, sex, diagnoses, history of suicide attempts, comorbid anxiety disorders, and unemployment.

RESULTS

In both study phases, BDI-II scores were strongly decreased at T2 and T3, respectively, compared with T1. The BDI-II scores of the two phases did not differ at any of the measurement time points. Depression changes were similar in both phases. In sequential multiple regression analyses with the total sample, AD were no significant predictors for the reduction of depression at either T2 or T3.

CONCLUSIONS

The inpatient CBT was effective in depression. The effectiveness of CBT is not improved by the additional use of AD. The current prescribing practices of AD should be questioned.

Typical disease courses of patients with unipolar depressive disorder after in-patient treatments-results of a cluster analysis of the INDDEP project

Introduction

Previously established categories for the classification of disease courses of unipolar depressive disorder (relapse, remission, recovery, recurrence) are helpful, but insufficient in describing the naturalistic disease courses over time. The intention of the present study was to identify frequent disease courses of depression by means of a cluster analysis.

Methods

For the longitudinal cluster analysis, 555 datasets of patients who participated in the INDDEP (INpatient and Day clinic treatment of DEPression) study, were used. The present study uses data of patients with at least moderate depressive symptoms (major depression) over a follow-up period of 1 year after their in-patient or day-care treatments using the LIFE (Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation)-interview. Eight German psychosomatic hospitals participated in this naturalistic observational study.

Results

Considering only the Calinski-Harabatz index, a 2-cluster solution gives the best statistical results. In combination with other indices and clinical interpretations, the 5-cluster solution seems to be the most interesting. The cluster sizes are large enough and numerically balanced. The KML-cluster analyses revealed five well interpretable disease course clusters over the follow-up period: "sustained treatment response" (N = 202, 36.4% of the patients), "recurrence" (N = 80, 14.4%), "persisting relapse" (N = 115, 20.7%), "temporary relapse" (N = 95, 17.1%), and remission (N = 63, 11.4%).

Conclusion

The disease courses of many patients diagnosed with a unipolar depression do not match with the historically developed categories such as relapse, remission, and recovery. Given this context, the introduction of disease course trajectories seems helpful. These findings may promote the implementation of new therapy options, adapted to the disease courses.

Suicide and death by other causes among patients with a severe mental illness: cohort study comparing risks among patients discharged from inpatient care v. those treated in the community

AIMS

People diagnosed with a severe mental illness (SMI) are at elevated risk of dying prematurely compared to the general population. We aimed to understand the additional risk among people with SMI after discharge from inpatient psychiatric care, when many patients experience an acute phase of their illness.

METHODS

In the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD and Aurum datasets, adults aged 18 years and older who were discharged from psychiatric inpatient care in England between 2001 and 2018 with primary diagnoses of SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, other psychoses) were matched by age and gender with up to five individuals with SMI and without recent hospital stays. Using survival analysis approaches, cumulative incidence and adjusted hazard ratios were estimated for all-cause mortality, external and natural causes of death, and suicide. All analyses were stratified by younger, middle and older ages and also by gender.

RESULTS

In the year after their discharge, the risk of dying by all causes examined was higher than among individuals with SMI who had not received inpatient psychiatric care recently. Suicide risk was 11.6 times (95% CI 6.4-20.9) higher in the first 3 months and remained greater at 2-5 years after discharge (HR 2.3, 1.7-3.2). This risk elevation remained after adjustment for self-harm in the 6 months prior to the discharge date. The relative risk of dying by natural causes was raised in the first 3 months (HR 1.6, 1.3-1.9), with no evidence of elevation during the second year following discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an additional risk of death by suicide and natural causes for people with SMI who have been recently discharged from inpatient care over and above the general risk among people with the same diagnosis who have not recently been treated as an inpatient. This mortality gap shows the importance of continued focus, following discharge, on individuals who require inpatient care.

[Aftercare of Psychiatric and Psychosomatic Inpatients with ICD-10 Disorders F3 and F4 (PfAD Study)]

OBJECTIVE

We investigated treatment pathways after discharge from in-patient treatment and their predictors.

METHODS

Within a prospective naturalistic study, 320 adult inpatients treated in four settings were examined at admission, discharge, and two follow-up time points. In addition to sociodemographic and clinical data, standardized instruments have been employed to collect data on pathways within the mental care system a half year before and one year after index treatment, respectively. Descriptive analyses and logistic regression models were applied.

RESULTS

Inpatient admissions in the first half of the follow-up year were common in psychiatric inpatients as planned aftercare. The majority of participants received outpatient aftercare. Main predictors of both inpatient readmission and outpatient psychotherapy after discharge were the setting of the index-treatment (psychiatry versus psychosomatics) as well as previous and planned forms of care.

CONCLUSION

Though according to plan, the pathways of aftercare in psychiatry and psychosomatics are predominantly disconnected and show little overlap.