↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating antidepressant treatment prior to adding second-line therapies among patients with treatment-resistant depression

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Evaluating antidepressant treatment prior to adding second-line therapies among patients with treatment-resistant depression
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11096-016-0272-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amany K. Hassan, Kevin C. Farmer, Nancy C. Brahm, Barbara R. Neas

Abstract

Background Patients with depression can be mistakenly labeled as treatment-resistant if they fail to receive an adequate first-line antidepressant trial. Adding second-line agents to the treatment regimens can create an additional burden on both the patients and the healthcare system. Objectives To determine if depressed patients receive an adequate antidepressant trial prior to starting second-line therapy and to investigate the association between the type of second-line treatment and severity of illness or depression among unipolar versus bipolar patients. Setting Oklahoma Medicaid claims data between 2006 and 2011. Methods Subjects were depression-diagnosed adult patients with at least two prescriptions of antidepressants followed by a second-line agent. Patients were categorized into one of three groups: an atypical antipsychotic, other augmentation agents (lithium, buspirone, and triiodothyronine), or adding antidepressants, based on the type of second-line therapy. An adequate trial was defined per the American Psychiatric Association guidelines. Factors associated with the type of treatment were tested using multinomial logistic regression models stratified by type of depression (unipolar vs. bipolar patients). Main outcome measure Variables used to measure receiving an adequate antidepressant trial included: trial duration, adherence, dose adequacy, and number of distinct antidepressant trials. Results A total of 3910 patients were included in the analysis. Most subjects reached the recommended antidepressant dose. However, 28 % of patients had an antidepressant trial duration <4 weeks and only 60 % tried at least two antidepressant regimens prior to adding second-line therapy. Approximately 50 % of the subjects were non-adherent across all groups. Severity of illness and receipt of an adequate antidepressant trial were not predictors of the type of second-line treatment. Conclusion Many patients do not receive an adequate antidepressant trial before starting a second-line agent. The type of second-line treatment was independent of severity of depression. These findings support policies that require reviewing the recommended dose and duration of the first-line antidepressant before adding second-line agents. Healthcare providers need to review the patient's history and reconsider the evidence for prescribing second-line agents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,445,779
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#877
of 1,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,892
of 298,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#14
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,082 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.