Effectiveness of Antidepressants in Combination with Psychotherapy.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Farrokh Alemi, Tulay G Soylu, Mary Cannon, Conor McCandless
{"title":"Effectiveness of Antidepressants in Combination with Psychotherapy.","authors":"Farrokh Alemi, Tulay G Soylu, Mary Cannon, Conor McCandless","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Consensus-guidelines for prescribing antidepressants recommend that clinicians should be vigilant to match antidepressants to patient's medical history but provide no specific advice on which antidepressant is best for a given medical history.</p><p><strong>Aims of the study: </strong>For patients with major depression who are in psychotherapy, this study provides an empirically derived guideline for prescribing antidepressant medications that fit patients' medical history.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, observational, cohort study analyzed a large insurance database of 3,678,082 patients. Data was obtained from healthcare providers in the U.S. between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2018. These patients had 10,221,145 episodes of antidepressant treatments. This study reports the remission rates for the 14 most commonly prescribed single antidepressants (amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine) and a category named \"Other\" (other antidepressants/combination of antidepressants). The study used robust LASSO regressions to identify factors that affected remission rate and clinicians' selection of antidepressants. The selection bias in observational data was removed through stratification. We organized the data into 16,770 subgroups, of at least 100 cases, using the combination of the largest factors that affected remission and selection bias. This paper reports on 2,467 subgroups of patients who had received psychotherapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found large, and statistically significant, differences in remission rates within subgroups of patients. Remission rates for sertraline ranged from 4.5% to 77.86%, for fluoxetine from 2.86% to 77.78%, for venlafaxine from 5.07% to 76.44%, for bupropion from 0.5% to 64.63%, for desvenlafaxine from 1.59% to 75%, for duloxetine from 3.77% to 75%, for paroxetine from 6.48% to 68.79%, for escitalopram from 1.85% to 65%, and for citalopram from 4.67% to 76.23%. Clearly these medications are ideal for patients in some subgroups but not others. If patients are matched to the subgroups, clinicians can prescribe the medication that works best in the subgroup. Some medications (amitriptyline, doxepin, nortriptyline, and trazodone) always had remission rates below 11% and therefore were not suitable as single antidepressant therapy for any of the subgroups.</p><p><strong>Discussions: </strong>This study provides an opportunity for clinicians to identify an optimal antidepressant for their patients, before they engage in repeated trials of antidepressants.</p><p><strong>Implications for health care provision and use: </strong>To facilitate the matching of patients to the most effective antidepressants, this study provides access to a free, non-commercial, decision aid at http://MeAgainMeds.com.</p><p><strong>Implications for health policies: </strong> Policymakers should evaluate how study findings can be made available through fragmented electronic health records at point-of-care. Alternatively, policymakers can put in place an AI system that recommends antidepressants to patients online, at home, and encourages them to bring the recommendation to their clinicians at their next visit.</p><p><strong>Implications for further research: </strong> Future research could investigate (i) the effectiveness of our recommendations in changing clinical practice, (ii) increasing remission of depression symptoms, and (iii) reducing cost of care. These studies need to be prospective but pragmatic. It is unlikely random clinical trials can address the large number of factors that affect remission.</p>","PeriodicalId":46381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Consensus-guidelines for prescribing antidepressants recommend that clinicians should be vigilant to match antidepressants to patient's medical history but provide no specific advice on which antidepressant is best for a given medical history.

Aims of the study: For patients with major depression who are in psychotherapy, this study provides an empirically derived guideline for prescribing antidepressant medications that fit patients' medical history.

Methods: This retrospective, observational, cohort study analyzed a large insurance database of 3,678,082 patients. Data was obtained from healthcare providers in the U.S. between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2018. These patients had 10,221,145 episodes of antidepressant treatments. This study reports the remission rates for the 14 most commonly prescribed single antidepressants (amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine) and a category named "Other" (other antidepressants/combination of antidepressants). The study used robust LASSO regressions to identify factors that affected remission rate and clinicians' selection of antidepressants. The selection bias in observational data was removed through stratification. We organized the data into 16,770 subgroups, of at least 100 cases, using the combination of the largest factors that affected remission and selection bias. This paper reports on 2,467 subgroups of patients who had received psychotherapy.

Results: We found large, and statistically significant, differences in remission rates within subgroups of patients. Remission rates for sertraline ranged from 4.5% to 77.86%, for fluoxetine from 2.86% to 77.78%, for venlafaxine from 5.07% to 76.44%, for bupropion from 0.5% to 64.63%, for desvenlafaxine from 1.59% to 75%, for duloxetine from 3.77% to 75%, for paroxetine from 6.48% to 68.79%, for escitalopram from 1.85% to 65%, and for citalopram from 4.67% to 76.23%. Clearly these medications are ideal for patients in some subgroups but not others. If patients are matched to the subgroups, clinicians can prescribe the medication that works best in the subgroup. Some medications (amitriptyline, doxepin, nortriptyline, and trazodone) always had remission rates below 11% and therefore were not suitable as single antidepressant therapy for any of the subgroups.

Discussions: This study provides an opportunity for clinicians to identify an optimal antidepressant for their patients, before they engage in repeated trials of antidepressants.

Implications for health care provision and use: To facilitate the matching of patients to the most effective antidepressants, this study provides access to a free, non-commercial, decision aid at http://MeAgainMeds.com.

Implications for health policies:  Policymakers should evaluate how study findings can be made available through fragmented electronic health records at point-of-care. Alternatively, policymakers can put in place an AI system that recommends antidepressants to patients online, at home, and encourages them to bring the recommendation to their clinicians at their next visit.

Implications for further research:  Future research could investigate (i) the effectiveness of our recommendations in changing clinical practice, (ii) increasing remission of depression symptoms, and (iii) reducing cost of care. These studies need to be prospective but pragmatic. It is unlikely random clinical trials can address the large number of factors that affect remission.

抗抑郁药与心理疗法相结合的疗效。
背景:抗抑郁药物处方共识指南建议临床医生应根据患者的病史警惕性地选择抗抑郁药物,但并未就特定病史最适合哪种抗抑郁药物提供具体建议:研究目的:对于接受心理治疗的重度抑郁症患者,本研究为根据患者病史开具抗抑郁药物处方提供了经验性指导:这项回顾性、观察性、队列研究分析了一个包含 3,678,082 名患者的大型保险数据库。数据来自 2001 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 12 月 31 日期间美国的医疗服务提供者。这些患者共接受了 10,221,145 次抗抑郁治疗。本研究报告了14种最常处方的单一抗抑郁药(阿米替林、安非他酮、西酞普兰、去文拉法辛、多虑平、度洛西汀、艾司西酞普兰、氟西汀、米氮平、去甲替林、帕罗西汀、舍曲林、曲唑酮和文拉法辛)和一个名为 "其他 "的类别(其他抗抑郁药/抗抑郁药复方)的缓解率。研究采用稳健的LASSO回归法来确定影响缓解率和临床医生选择抗抑郁药物的因素。通过分层消除了观察性数据中的选择偏差。我们利用影响缓解率和选择偏差的最大因素组合,将数据分为 16,770 个至少有 100 个病例的亚组。本文报告了 2467 个接受过心理治疗的患者分组的情况:结果:我们发现,在亚组患者中,缓解率存在很大差异,而且在统计学上具有显著意义。舍曲林的缓解率从 4.5% 到 77.86%,氟西汀的缓解率从 2.86% 到 77.78%,文拉法辛的缓解率从 5.07% 到 76.44%,安非他酮的缓解率从 0.5% 到 64.63%,去文拉法辛从 1.59% 到 75%,度洛西汀从 3.77% 到 75%,帕罗西汀从 6.48% 到 68.79%,艾司西酞普兰从 1.85% 到 65%,西酞普兰从 4.67% 到 76.23%。显然,这些药物对某些亚组的患者来说是理想的选择,但对其他亚组的患者来说则不是。如果将患者与亚组相匹配,临床医生就可以为亚组患者开具疗效最好的药物。有些药物(阿米替林、多虑平、去甲替林和曲唑酮)的缓解率总是低于 11%,因此不适合作为任何亚组的单一抗抑郁治疗药物:讨论:这项研究为临床医生提供了一个机会,使他们能够在反复试验抗抑郁药之前,为患者确定最佳抗抑郁药:为便于将患者与最有效的抗抑郁药物相匹配,本研究提供了免费、非商业性的决策辅助工具,http://MeAgainMeds.com.Implications: 政策制定者应评估如何通过零散的医疗点电子健康记录提供研究结果。另外,政策制定者还可以建立一个人工智能系统,在家中向患者在线推荐抗抑郁药物,并鼓励他们在下次就诊时将推荐意见带给临床医生: 未来的研究可以调查(i)我们的建议在改变临床实践方面的有效性,(ii)提高抑郁症状的缓解率,以及(iii)降低护理成本。这些研究需要具有前瞻性,但要务实。随机临床试验不太可能解决影响缓解的大量因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics publishes high quality empirical, analytical and methodologic papers focusing on the application of health and economic research and policy analysis in mental health. It offers an international forum to enable the different participants in mental health policy and economics - psychiatrists involved in research and care and other mental health workers, health services researchers, health economists, policy makers, public and private health providers, advocacy groups, and the pharmaceutical industry - to share common information in a common language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信