Search

Abstract Background Minor and mild-major depression are highly prevalent in primary care. There is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of antidepressants in the treatment of minor and mild-major depression. We compared the effectiveness of usual primary care treatment, with or without antidepressants, in minor and mild-major depression. Methods A pragmatic patient-randomized equivalence trial with 52 weeks follow-up was conducted in The Netherlands. In total, 59 primary care physicians (PCPs) recruited and treated 181 adult patients with minor or mild-major depression. Patients were randomized to four consultations within 3 months of usual care plus antidepressants (UCandAD) or usual care alone (UCnoAD). The Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was used to assess changes in severity of depressive symptoms. The predefined equivalence margin was set at five points. Multilevel analysis was used to analyze the data. Secondary outcome measures were the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). Results Patients received on average 3.0 (SD 1.4) 15-min consultations within 3 months with (n = 85) or without paroxetine (n = 96). Equivalence of UCandAD and UCnoAD was demonstrated in the intention-to-treat analyses as well as the per-protocol analysis after 6 weeks, but not at 13, 26 and 52 weeks follow-up. No statistical differences in effectiveness between treatment groups were found in the intention-to-treat analysis. No differences in the physical and mental functioning (SF-36) were found between the treatment groups. Patients allocated to UCandAD were slightly more satisfied with their treatment at 13 weeks follow-up (but not at 52 weeks follow-up) than patients allocated to UCnoAD. Preliminary analyses suggested that subgroups such as patients with mild-major (instead of a minor) depression might benefit from antidepressant treatment. Patients who were assigned to their preferred treatment (in particular to UCnoAD) were more often compliant and had better clinical outcomes. Conclusion UCandAD was as effective as UCnoAD over the first 6 weeks, but not at 13, 26, and 52 weeks. However, superiority of either treatment could not be demonstrated either. The question whether antidepressants add any clinical effect to usual care remains unresolved. We recommend future studies to look for subgroups of patients who may benefit from antidepressants. Trial registration Dutch Trial Registry ISRCN03007807.

Abstract Background Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) is recommended in most depression treatment guidelines and proved to be a suitable treatment for elderly depressed patients. Despite the favorable results of IPT in research populations, the dissemination to general practice is surprisingly limited. Little is known about uptake and satisfaction when this therapy is introduced into real-life general practice. Methods Motivation and evaluation of patients, GPs and therapists were recorded and organizational barriers described alongside a randomized controlled trial. IPT, given by mental health workers, was compared with usual general practitioner (GP) care. Included were patients (≥55 years) who met the DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder. Results Patients were motivated for the psychotherapy intervention: of the 205 eligible patients, 143 (70%) entered the study, and of the 69 patients who were offered IPT, 77% complied with the treatment. IPT proved to be an attractive therapy for patients as well as for therapists from mental health organizations. General practitioners evaluated the intervention positively afterwards, mainly because of the time-limited and structured approach. Organizational barriers: no IPT therapists were available; an IPT trainer and supervisor had to be trained and training materials had to be developed and translated. Additionally, there was a lack of office space in some general practices; for therapists from private practices it was not feasible to participate because of financial reasons. IPT was superior to usual care in patients with moderate to severe depression. Conclusion As we succeeded in delivering IPT in primary care practice, and as IPT was superior to usual care, there are grounds to support the implementation of IPT for depressed elderly patients within general practice, as long as the practices have room for the therapists and financial barriers can be overcome. Consolidation may be achieved by making this intervention available through practice nurses or community psychiatric nurses who deliver IPT as part of a more comprehensive depression management program.

Abstract Background The Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is a frequently used observer-rated depression scale. In the present study, a telephonic rating was compared with a face-to-face rating in 66 primary care patients with minor or mild-major depression. The aim of the present study was to assess the validity of the administration by telephone. Additional objective was to study the validity of the first item, 'apparent sadness', the only item purely based on observation. Methods The present study was a validity study. During an in-person interview at the patient's home a trained interviewer administered the MADRS. A few days later the MADRS was administered again, but now by telephone and by a different interviewer. The validity of the telephone rating was calculated through the appropriate intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results Mean total score on the in-person administration was 24.0 (SD = 11.1), and on the telephone administration 23.5 (SD = 10.4). The ICC for the full scale was 0.65. Homogeneity analysis showed that the observation item 'apparent sadness' fitted well into the scale. Conclusion The full MADRS, including the observation item 'apparent sadness', can be administered reliably by telephone.

Background: Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) is recommended in most depression treatment guidelines and proved to be a suitable treatment for elderly depressed patients. Despite the favorable results of IPT in research populations, the dissemination to general practice is surprisingly limited. Little is known about uptake and satisfaction when this therapy is introduced into real-life general practice. Methods: Motivation and evaluation of patients, GPs and therapists were recorded and organizational barriers described alongside a randomized controlled trial. IPT, given by mental health workers, was compared with usual general practitioner (GP) care. Included were patients (≥55 years) who met the DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder. Results: Patients were motivated for the psychotherapy intervention: of the 205 eligible patients, 143 (70%) entered the study, and of the 69 patients who were offered IPT, 77% complied with the treatment. IPT proved to be an attractive therapy for patients as well as for therapists from mental health organizations. General practitioners evaluated the intervention positively afterwards, mainly because of the time-limited and structured approach. Organizational barriers: no IPT therapists were available; an IPT trainer and supervisor had to be trained and training materials had to be developed and translated. Additionally, there was a lack of office space in some general practices; for therapists from private practices it was not feasible to participate because of financial reasons. IPT was superior to usual care in patients with moderate to severe depression. Conclusion: As we succeeded in delivering IPT in primary care practice, and as IPT was superior to usual care, there are grounds to support the implementation of IPT for depressed elderly patients within general practice, as long as the practices have room for the therapists and financial barriers can be overcome. Consolidation may be achieved by making this intervention available through practice nurses or community psychiatric nurses who deliver IPT as part of a more comprehensive depression management program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to assess whether a cut-off of five on the 15-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) that was determined beforehand yielded the best sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of major depression in the elderly in primary care. A sample of 330 patients was drawn from a group of elderly patients (≥ 55 years) that participated in a clinical trial, the West-Friesland Study (WFS). The mood-module of the PRIMary care Evaluation of Mental Disorder (PRIME-MD) served as the external criterion for major depression. The results showed that using a ROC-curve the best cut-off score of the GDS-15 was five. This cut-off score gave a sensitivity of 0.79 and a specificity of 0.67 and a negative predictive value of 0.94. It is concluded that the validation in retrospect of the a priori chosen cut-off score of five in a sample of the study population supports our a priori choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Late-life depression is associated with chronic illness, disability, and a poor prognosis. Primary care management may be in need of improvement., Aim: To compare the effects of an intervention programme that aims to improve the identification, diagnosis, and treatment of depression in patients aged > or =55 years with the effects of usual care., Design of Study: Cluster randomised controlled trial., Setting: General practices in the Netherlands., Method: Trained GPs performed the intervention and their practice assistants conducted the screenings. Patients were screened with the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) and given a consultation with the GP who diagnosed depression with the mood module of the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD). Antidepressant treatment was proposed. Primary outcomes were measured with the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Trained independent research assistants performed independent evaluations in both arms., Results: Eighteen practices (23 GPs) were allocated to the intervention and 16 practices (20 GPs) to usual care. From June 2000 to September 2002, 3937 patients were screened; 579 patients had a positive score on the GDS-15, 178 had major depression, of whom 145 participated in the trial. MADRS scores for the intervention group dropped from 21.66 at baseline to 9.23 at 6 months, and the usual care group from 20.94 at baseline to 11.45 at 6 months. MADRS scores decreased during the year in both arms. For the intervention group, these scores increased between 6 and 12 months., Conclusion: The programme resulted in lower MADRS scores in the intervention group than in the usual care group, but only at the end of the intervention, at 6 months after baseline.

According to professionals, medication nonadherence is often attributed to adverse effects or early remission. There is, however, little evidence to support these attributions. Our aim was to study the predictors of nonadherence in primary care patients with a new antidepressant (AD) prescription. We used a prospective cohort study with 6-month follow-up among 147 primary care patients who were newly prescribed with a nontricyclic AD for depression. They were recruited in 19 community pharmacies in the Netherlands that were linked to 85 general practitioners. An electronic pill container (medication event monitoring system; Aardex Ltd, Untermüli, Switzerland) registered the adherence for 6 months. The predictive values of patient, prescriber, pharmacist, and drug-related characteristics were expressed in univariate and multivariate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Outcome measures showed nonadherence, as expressed in these factors (all dichotomous): (1) incorrect intakes (<80% period coverage); (2) extra pill intakes (>1 per day); (3) drug holidays (>or=1). We found that not only a positive drug attitude, the most important predictor, but also adverse effects, early treatment response, longer onset of depression, and a higher educational level predicted the correct intake of ADs. Extra intakes were predicted by ADs with a shorter half-life and by experience of adverse effects. Drug holidays were predicted by patients with less social support and a negative drug attitude. In conclusion, the predictors of adherence were multifactorial and varied across the 3 adherence types. A positive drug attitude emerged as the most important predictor for correct intakes and drug holidays.

Objectives: To examine asthma control in conjunction with medication use in asthma patients from general practice. To determine features of patients with inadequately controlled asthma., Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed among 661 adult asthma patients recruited from general practice. Disease control was defined by: (1) respiratory symptoms; (2) forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1))% predicted; (3) PEF variability; and (4) the use of beta2-agonists. Medical treatment was categorised according to the step-care therapy rules following the 1997 guideline of the Dutch College of General Practitioners (DDGP)., Results: Of the 661 asthma patients studied, 262 (40%) had a good disease control, 84 (13%) a mildly reduced, 235 (36%) a moderately reduced, and 80 (12%) had a poor disease control. Of the 399 patients (60%) inadequately controlled, in 292 patients (44%) adequate control might be achieved by changing treatment, in 99 patients (15%) adequate control might not completely be achieved by changing treatment, and 8 (1%) were already maximally treated. Compared to patients with a good disease control, patients inadequately controlled were usually older, less educated, younger at onset of pulmonary complaints, and in addition had more severe dyspnea and poorer health-related quality of life (HRQoL)., Conclusion: Using our criteria, a substantial proportion of asthma patients primarily treated in general practice is not adequately controlled. Assessing patients' disease control together with the level of medical treatment may help to gain insight into the effectiveness of current disease management.