Search

Background: Taking patient preference into consideration has received increased attention in the last decades. We conducted a meta‐analysis to estimate the effects of patient preference on clinical outcome, satisfaction and adherence regarding treatment of depression and anxiety. Methods: Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus were searched for (cluster) randomized controlled trials. Twenty‐six randomized controlled clinical trials were included, comprising 3670 participants, examining the effect of patient preference regarding treatment of anxiety and depression on clinical outcome, satisfaction and/or adherence. Results: No effect of patient preference was found on clinical outcome [d = 0.06, 95% CI = (−0.03, 0.15), p = 0.16, n = 23 studies]. A small effect of patient preference was found on treatment satisfaction [d = 0.33, 95% CI = (0.08, 0.59), p = 0.01, n = 6 studies] and on treatment adherence [OR = 1.55, 95% CI = (1.28, 1.87), p < 0.001, n = 22 studies]. Limitations: Patient preference is a heterogeneous concept, future studies should strive to equalize operationalization of preference. Subgroup analyses within this study should be interpreted with caution because the amount of studies per analysed subgroup was generally low. Most studies included in this meta‐analysis focused on patients with depression. The small number of studies (n = 6) on satisfaction, prevents us from drawing firm conclusions. Conclusions: While this meta‐analysis did not find a positive effect of considering patient preference on clinical outcome, it was associated with slightly better treatment satisfaction and adherence. Accommodating preference of patients with anxiety and depression can improve treatment. Trial Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020172556 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following remission of an anxiety disorder or a depressive disorder, antidepressants are frequently discontinued and in the case of symptom occurrence reinstated. Reinstatement of antidepressants seems less effective in some patients, but an overview is lacking. This systematic review aimed to provide insight into the magnitude and risk factors of response failure after reinstatement of antidepressants in patients with anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).Method: PubMed, Embase, and trial registers were systematically searched for studies in which patients: (1) had an anxiety disorder, a depressive disorder, OCD, or PTSD and (2) experienced failure to respond after reinstatement of a previously effective antidepressant.Results: Ten studies reported failure to respond following antidepressant reinstatement. The phenomenon was observed in 16.5% of patients with a depressive disorder, OCD, and social phobia and occurred in all common classes of antidepressants. The range of response failure was broad, varying between 3.8 and 42.9% across studies. No risk factors for failure to respond were investigated. The overall study quality was limited.Conclusion: Research investigating response failure is scarce and the study quality limited. Response failure occurred in a substantial minority of patients. Contributors to the relevance of this phenomenon are the prevalence of the investigated disorders, the number of patients being treated with antidepressants, and the occurrence of response failure for all common classes of antidepressants. This systematic review highlights the need for studies systematically investigating this phenomenon and associated risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies evaluating collaborative care for anxiety disorders are recently emerging. A systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of collaborative care for adult patients with anxiety disorders in primary care is therefore warranted. Methods: A literature search was performed. Data sources: PubMed, Psycinfo, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane library. Study eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of collaborative care for adult primary care patients with an anxiety disorder, compared to care as usual or another intervention. Synthesis methods: Standardized mean differences (SMD) on an anxiety scale closest to twelve months follow-up were calculated and pooled in a random effects meta-analysis. Results: Of the 3073 studies found, seven studies were included with a total of 2105 participants. Included studies were of moderate to high quality. Collaborative care was superior to care as usual, with a small effect size (SMD = 0.35 95 % CI 0.14-0.56) for all anxiety disorders combined and a moderate effect size (SMD = 0.59, 95 % CI 0.41-0.78) in a subgroup analysis (five studies) on patients with panic disorder. Conclusions: Collaborative care seems to be a promising strategy for improving primary care for anxiety disorders, in particular panic disorder. However, the number of studies is still small and further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness in other anxiety disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]