Search

Objective: There is limited knowledge about the ability of instruments to detect risk of suicide in a range of settings. Prior reviews have not considered whether the utility of instruments depends on prior probability of risk. We performed a systematic review to determine the diagnostic accuracy of instruments to detect risk of suicide in adults using likelihood ratio analysis. This method aids evaluation of prior probabilities of risk., Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Scopus from inception through January 19, 2021., Study Selection: We included clinical trials, observational studies, and quasi-experimental studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of instruments to detect risk of suicide in adults. There were no language restrictions., Data Extraction: Three reviewers in duplicate assessed full texts to determine eligibility and extracted data from included studies. Positive (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and 95% CIs were calculated for each instrument., Results: Thirty studies met inclusion criteria. Most instruments showed minimal utility to detect or rule out risk of suicide, with LR+ ≤ 2.0 and LR- ≥ 0.5. A few instruments had a high utility for improving risk detection in emergency department, inpatient mental health, and prison settings when patients scored above the cutoff (LR+ > 10). For example, among patients discharged from an emergency department, the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale-Clinical Practice Screener had a LR+ of 10.3 (95% CI, 6.3-16.8) at 3-month follow-up. The clinical utility of the instruments depends on the pretest probability of suicide in the setting. Because studies spanned over 6 decades, the findings are at risk for secular trends., Discussion: We identified several instruments that may hold promise for detecting risk of suicide in emergency department, inpatient mental health, or prison settings. The utility of the instrument hinges, in part, on baseline suicide risk., Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021285528., (© Copyright 2022 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: Fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, topiramate, and venlafaxine have previously shown efficacy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). One prior study using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records data to compare these agents found no differences in symptom reduction in clinical practice. The current study addresses several weaknesses in that study, including limited standardization of treatment duration, inability to account for prior treatment receipt, use of an outdated symptomatic assessment for PTSD, and lack of functional outcome., Methods: A total of 834 VA outpatients were identified with DSM-5 clinical diagnoses of PTSD between October 2016 and March 2018 who initiated one of the medications and met prespecified criteria for treatment duration and dose, combined with baseline and endpoint DSM-5 PTSD Checklist (PCL-5) measurements. Twelve-week acute-phase changes in PCL-5 score and remission of PTSD symptoms were compared among patients receiving the different medications, as was use of acute psychiatric services in the subsequent 6-month continuation phase., Results: In the acute phase, patients improved by a mean of 6.8-10.1 points on the PCL-5 and 0.0%-10.9% achieved remission of PTSD symptoms. Those taking venlafaxine were significantly more likely to achieve remission (P = .008 vs fluoxetine and P < .0001 vs paroxetine, sertraline, and topiramate). In the continuation phase, there were no differences in acute psychiatric care use between medications. Those who continued their medication were less likely to use acute psychiatric services (HR = 0.55; P = .03)., Conclusions: There may be an advantage to venlafaxine over other agents in achieving acute-phase remission for DSM-5 PTSD in routine clinical practice, but this finding requires further study. Regardless of the agent chosen, medication cessation during the continuation phase is associated with a higher risk of acute psychiatric care use., (© Copyright 2020 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: Fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, topiramate, and venlafaxine have consistently shown efficacy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. However, no study has compared the effectiveness of these agents in routine clinical practice. We conducted a retrospective comparative effectiveness study of these 5 medications using electronic medical record data., Methods: We identified 2,931 Department of Veterans Affairs outpatients initiating treatment for PTSD between fiscal years 2004 and 2013 who received 1 of the 5 medications at an adequate dose and duration, combined with baseline and endpoint PTSD Checklist (PCL) measurements. Patients were identified based on clinical diagnoses of PTSD (DSM-IV criteria). We weighted participants in order to balance pretreatment characteristics. We compared continuous changes on total PCL score, symptom cluster scores, and sleep items, as well as categorical changes including reliable improvement and loss of PTSD diagnosis, using weighted regression analyses. We conducted exploratory analysis to determine whether any patient characteristics or service use variables predicted loss of PTSD diagnosis., Results: Patients improved by a mean of 5-6 points on the PCL over approximately 6 months of treatment. While half of patients had a reliable improvement of 5 points or more on the PCL, less than a fifth achieved loss of PTSD diagnosis. There were no differences between medications. The only significant (P < .001) predictor of loss of PTSD diagnosis was concurrent treatment with evidence-based psychotherapy., Conclusions: Available evidence-based medications for PTSD are equally effective in clinical practice. Although effective, our data suggest that patients choosing medication treatment for PTSD should consider concurrent treatment with evidence-based psychotherapy in order to maximize their chances of meaningful improvement., (© Copyright 2018 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: To compare health care resource utilization and costs in veterans with schizophrenia treated with paliperidone palmitate (PP) versus oral atypical antipsychotics (OAAs)., Methods: A retrospective longitudinal study was conducted using electronic health record data from the Veterans Health Administration. Veterans with schizophrenia (identified using ICD-9-CM 295.x) initiating PP or OAAs between January 2010 and October 2014, with ≥ 12 months of benefits enrollment prior to treatment initiation and ≥ 6 months of enrollment after treatment initiation, and with ≥ 1 Global Assessment of Functioning measurement at baseline were included. Inverse probability of treatment weighted regression models were used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and cost differences (CDs) for the impact of PP versus OAAs on health care resource utilization and costs., Results: Among 10,290 eligible veterans, 2,285 and 8,005 were initiated on PP and OAAs, respectively. After adjustment, PP was associated with less frequent all-cause inpatient hospitalizations (IRR = 0.89, P < .001) and more frequent mental health intensive case management visits (IRR = 1.81, P < .001) compared to OAAs. PP treatment was associated with higher likelihood of increased income (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20, P = .027) and lower likelihood of homelessness (OR = 0.82, P < .001). While mean annual pharmacy and outpatient costs were higher among PP users (CD = $3,417 pharmacy, $2,527 outpatient, P < .001), mean annual inpatient costs were lower (CD = -$14,456, P < .001), resulting in average annual total health care (medical and pharmacy) cost savings associated with PP (CD = -$8,511, P = .012) relative to OAAs., Conclusions: PP treatment was associated with significantly lower total health care costs attributable to reduced inpatient admissions compared to OAAs. Higher mental health intensive case management participation among PP users may have contributed to the differences observed., (© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an important mental health issue in terms of the number of people affected and the morbidity and functional impairment associated with the disorder. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of all treatments for PTSD., Data Sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, PILOTS, and PsycINFO databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials of any treatment for PTSD in adults published between January 1, 1980, and April 1, 2012, and written in the English language. The following search terms were used: post-traumatic stress disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD, combat disorders, and stress disorders, post-traumatic., Study Selection: Articles selected were those in which all subjects were adults with a diagnosis of PTSD based on DSM criteria and a valid PTSD symptom measure was reported. Other study characteristics were systematically collected. The sample consisted of 137 treatment comparisons drawn from 112 studies., Results: Effective psychotherapies included cognitive therapy, exposure therapy, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (g = 1.63, 1.08, and 1.01, respectively). Effective pharmacotherapies included paroxetine, sertraline, fluoxetine, risperidone, topiramate, and venlafaxine (g = 0.74, 0.41, 0.43, 0.41, 1.20, and 0.48, respectively). For both psychotherapy and medication, studies with more women had larger effects and studies with more veterans had smaller effects. Psychotherapy studies with wait-list controls had larger effects than studies with active control comparisons., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that patients and providers have a variety of options for choosing an effective treatment for PTSD. Substantial differences in study design and study participant characteristics make identification of a single best treatment difficult. Not all medications or psychotherapies are effective., (© Copyright 2013 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)