INTRODUCTION Evidence for the effectiveness of drug treatment for depression in primary care settings remains limited, with little information on newer antidepressant classes. AIM To update an earlier Cochrane review on the effectiveness of antidepressants in primary care to include newer antidepressant classes, and to examine the efficacy of individual agents. METHODS Selection criteria included antidepressant studies with a randomly assigned placebo group where half or more subjects were recruited from primary care. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis (CCDAN) group searched multiple databases to identify eligible studies. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Data were analysed using Revman version 5.3.5. RESULTS In total, 17 papers and 22 comparisons were included for analysis. Significant benefits in terms of response were found for tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) with a relative risk (RR) = 1.23 (95% CI, 1.01-1.48), and serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) with a RR = 1.33 (95% CI, 1.20-1.48). Mianserin was effective for continuous outcomes. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) for TCA = 8.5; SSRI = 6.5; and venlafaxine = 6. Most studies were industry-funded and of a brief duration (≤ 8 weeks). There was evidence of publication bias. There were no studies comparing newer antidepressants against placebo. CONCLUSION Antidepressants such as TCA, SSRI, SNRI (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) and NaSSA (noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant) classes appear to be effective in primary care when compared with placebo. However, in view of the potential for publication bias and that only four studies were not funded by industry, caution is needed when considering their use in primary care.

A range of therapies are effective for acrophobia in the short term but not in the long term. Many of the comparative studies showed equivalence between therapies, but this finding may be due to a type II statistical error. The quality of reporting was poor in most studies.

Objective To assess the effectiveness of a novel imaginal intervention for people with acrophobia. Methods The design was a randomized controlled trial with concealed randomization and blinded to other participants' intervention. The intervention was a single novel imaginal intervention session or a 15-min meditation. The setting was in Auckland, New Zealand. The participants were a convenience sample of the public with a score >29 on the Heights Interpretation Questionnaire (HIQ), a questionnaire validated against actual height exposure. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants with a score <26 on the HIQ at eight weeks and difference between the HIQ scores between the two arms of the study. Results Ninety-eight participants (92%) returned their questionnaire and were included in the intention to treat analysis. The HIQ score <26 was 34.6% (18/52) in the intervention group and 15.2% (7/46) in the control group RR = 2.26, 95% CI (1.05, 4.95) and p = 0.028. The numbers needed to treat is six 95% CI (3 to 36). Participants with scores <26 report their fear of heights is very much improved. There was a 4.5-point difference in the HIQ score at eight weeks (p = 0.055) on the multiple regression analysis. Conclusions This is the first randomized trial of this novel imaginal intervention which is probably effective, brief, easily learnt, and safe. It may be worth considering doing this prior to some of the longer or more expensive exposure therapies. This study will be of interest to family doctors, psychiatrists, and psychologists.

Strategies such as maternal vaccination or accelerated neonatal vaccination may be beneficial to protect neonates at high risk of IPD.

Introduction: The first primary care consultation for patients with depression can have long-term consequences for patients, but little is known about treatment decisions at this visit. The aim of this study was to explore the treatment of patients presenting in primary care with a new episode of depression and the drivers behind GPs’ treatment decisions at the initial consultation. Materials and Methods: A random sample of GPs in Auckland was invited to participate. A qualitative study was undertaken using semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a general inductive approach. Results: Twenty-one GPs were interviewed. We identified three themes as drivers of treatment decisions at the first visit: characteristics of GPs, characteristics of patients, and characteristics of treatment options. Drivers for prescribing were severe depression and time constraints. A driver for non-pharmacological treatment was a strong doctor–patient relationship. Limited time, skill, and training were associated with low confidence using talking therapies. Access to counseling was reported as poor. There was a very wide range of approaches taken. GPs described preferring antidepressants less and talking therapies more with Māori patients. Behavioral activation was used least despite its ease of use and it being one of the most effective treatments for depression. Conclusion: Treatment of depression at the first visit varies widely between practitioners. GPs report multiple barriers to the provision of talking therapies. A move to a more standardized approach may lead to more equitable care. This is the first study to report findings about the initial primary care consultation for depression.