Objectives To examine the risk of relapse and time to relapse after discontinuation of antidepressants in patients with anxiety disorder who responded to antidepressants, and to explore whether relapse risk is related to type of anxiety disorder, type of antidepressant, mode of discontinuation, duration of treatment and follow-up, comorbidity, and allowance of psychotherapy. Design Systematic review and meta-analyses of relapse prevention trials. Data sources PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and clinical trial registers (from inception to July 2016). Study selection Eligible studies included patients with anxiety disorder who responded to antidepressants, randomised patients double blind to either continuing antidepressants or switching to placebo, and compared relapse rates or time to relapse. Data extraction Two independent raters selected studies and extracted data. Random effect models were used to estimate odds ratios for relapse, hazard ratios for time to relapse, and relapse prevalence per group. The effect of various categorical and continuous variables was explored with subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses respectively. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Results The meta-analysis included 28 studies (n=5233) examining relapse with a maximum follow-up of one year. Across studies, risk of bias was considered low. Discontinuation increased the odds of relapse compared with continuing antidepressants (summary odds ratio 3.11, 95% confidence interval 2.48 to 3.89). Subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses showed no statistical significance. Time to relapse (n=3002) was shorter when antidepressants were discontinued (summary hazard ratio 3.63, 2.58 to 5.10; n=11 studies). Summary relapse prevalences were 36.4% (30.8% to 42.1%; n=28 studies) for the placebo group and 16.4% (12.6% to 20.1%; n=28 studies) for the antidepressant group, but prevalence varied considerably across studies, most likely owing to differences in the length of follow-up. Dropout was higher in the placebo group (summary odds ratio 1.31, 1.06 to 1.63; n=27 studies). Conclusions Up to one year of follow-up, discontinuation of antidepressant treatment results in higher relapse rates among responders compared with treatment continuation. The lack of evidence after a one year period should not be interpreted as explicit advice to discontinue antidepressants after one year. Given the chronicity of anxiety disorders, treatment should be directed by long term considerations, including relapse prevalence, side effects, and patients’ preferences.

BackgroundAppropriate management of anxiety disorders in primary care requires clinical assessment and monitoring of the severity of the anxiety. This study focuses on the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) as a severity indicator for anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders (social phobia, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, agoraphobia or generalized anxiety disorder), depressive disorders or no disorder (controls).MethodsParticipants were 1601 primary care patients participating in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Regression analyses were used to compare the mean BAI scores of the different diagnostic groups and to correct for age and gender.ResultsPatients with any anxiety disorder had a significantly higher mean score than the controls. A significantly higher score was found for patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia compared to patients with agoraphobia only or social phobia only. BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid anxiety disorder and in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid depressive disorder were significantly higher than BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder alone or patients with a depressive disorder alone. Depressed and anxious patients did not differ significantly in their mean scores.ConclusionsThe results suggest that the BAI may be used as a severity indicator of anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders. However, because the instrument seems to reflect the severity of depression as well, it is not a suitable instrument to discriminate between anxiety and depression in a primary care population.

Treatment within a CSC model resulted in an earlier treatment response compared with CAU.

Background: Collaborative stepped care (CSC) may be an appropriate model to provide evidence-based treatment for anxiety disorders in primary care. Methods: In acluster randomised controlled trial, the effectiveness of CSC compared to care as usual (CAU) for adults with panic disorder (PD) or generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) in primary care was evaluated. Thirty-one psychiatric nurses who provided their services to 43 primary care practices in the Netherlands were randomised to deliver CSC (16 psychiatric nurses, 23 practices) or CAU (15 psychiatric nurses, 20 practices). CSC was provided by the psychiatric nurses (care managers) in collaboration with the general practitioner and a consultant psychiatrist. The intervention consisted of 3 steps, namely guided self-help, cognitive behavioural therapy and antidepressants. Anxiety symptoms were measured with the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Results: We recruited 180 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of PD or GAD, of whom 114 received CSC and 66 received usual primary care. On the BAI, CSC wassuperior to CAU [difference in gain scores from baseline to 3 months: -5.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.28 to -1.94; 6 months: -4.65, 95% CI -7.93 to -1.38; 9 months: -5.67, 95% CI -8.97 to -2.36; 12 months: -6.84, 95% CI -10.13 to -3.55]. Conclusions: CSC, with guided self-help as a first step, was more effective than CAU for primary care patients with PD or GAD.

No abstract

BackgroundStudies 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsCollaborative 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.

BackgroundDepression is a common mental disorder with a high burden of disease which is mainly treated in primary care. It is unclear to what extent stepped care principles are applied in routine primary care. The first aim of this explorative study was to examine the gap between routine primary depression care and optimal care, as formulated in the depression guidelines. The second aim was to explore the facilitators and barriers that affect the provision of optimal care.MethodsOptimal care was operationalised by indicators covering the entire continuum of depression care: from prevention to chronic depression. Routine care was investigated by interviewing general practitioners (GPs) individually and together with other mental health care providers about the depression care they delivered collaboratively. Qualitative analysis of transcripts was performed using thematic coding. Additionally, the GPs completed a self-report questionnaire.ResultsSix GPs and 22 other (mostly primary) mental health care providers participated. The GPs and their primary care colleagues embraced a general stepped care approach. They offered psycho-education and counselling to mildly depressed patients. When the treatment effects were not satisfactory or patients were more severely depressed, the GPs offered, or referred to, psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy. Patients with a complex and severe depressive disorder were directly referred to specialised mental health care. However, GPs relied on their clinical judgment and rarely used instruments to assess and monitor the severity of depressive symptoms. Structured, evidence based interventions such as self-management and e-health were rarely offered to patients with depressive symptoms. Specific psychological interventions for relapse prevention or for chronically depressed patients were not available. A wide range of influencing factors for the provision of optimal depression care were put forward. Close collaboration with other mental health care professionals was considered an important factor for improvement by nearly all GPs.ConclusionsThe management of depression in primary care seems in line with stepped care principles, although it can be improved by applying more elements of a stepped care approach. Collaboration between GPs and mental health care providers in primary care and secondary care should be enhanced.

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) affects the physical and emotional wellbeing of patients. More information is needed regarding mental problems and preferences for support. Qualitative interviews were used to explore mental problems and preference for support of PAH patients. Additionally, a survey was used to assess the presence of mental problems (Problem List), distress (Distress Thermometer) and the need for mental support. In 24 semi-structured interviews, the following problem themes were identified: energy balance; loss of abilities; feeling misunderstood; and handling of worries and emotions. Need for support was based on an interplay between resilience to psychological distress, additional life problems, age, disease status, attitude towards professional help, and experienced support from significant others. The results from the survey highlight the need for professional support, as 50.8% of the 67 patients who completed the survey would consider support when offered, specifically when offered by a pulmonary hypertension (PH) professional. Younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 0.97, P = 0.04), depression (OR = 11.435, P = 0.001) and possibly anxiety (OR = 3.831, P = 0.069) were related to need for support. In conclusion, many patients with PAH are in need of mental support, which should be offered by a PH professional and tailored to phase of the disease and personal characteristics.