Values and Preferences of Patients With Depressive Disorders Regarding Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Treatments : A Rapid Review

Relative Preference for In-Person, Telehealth, Digital, and Pharmacologic Mental Health Care After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study

BACKGROUND

Most adults and children in the United States fail to receive timely care for mental health symptoms, with even worse rates of care access for individuals who belong to racial and ethnic minority groups. Digital (ie, app-based) care has proven to be an efficacious and empirically supported treatment option with the potential to address low rates of care and reduce care disparities, yet little is known about the relative preference for such treatment. Furthermore, the rapid adoption of telehealth care during the COVID-19 pandemic may have shifted care preferences.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine relative treatment preferences for 4 different types of mental health care: in-person psychological care, telehealth psychological care, digital treatment, or pharmacologic care. Care preferences were also examined relative to potential predictors of care use (ie, gender, race, age, stigma, discrimination, and level of shame).

METHODS

In this cross-sectional online survey study of adults (N=237, mean age 35 years, range 19-68 years), we ranked 4 mental health care modalities based on care preference: (1) in-person care, (2) telehealth care, (3) digital care, and (4) pharmacologic care. Preference for treatment modality was assessed based on vignette presentation for generalized anxiety disorder and insomnia. In addition, participants completed self-report questionnaires for demographics, symptom severity, and psychological and stigma-related variables.

RESULTS

We found no difference in overall preference for in-person versus both telehealth and digital care. For both generalized anxiety disorder and insomnia, participants preferred in-person care to telehealth care, although this finding was attenuated amongst older participants for insomnia treatment. Participants' depressed mood was associated with a greater relative preference for pharmacologic care. There was no evidence of differential preference for digital care according to demographics, symptom severity, or psychological and stigma-related variables.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that digital care now competes well in terms of treatment preference with in-person, telehealth, and pharmacologic treatment options.

Do individuals with inflammatory arthritis receive minimally adequate treatment for incident depression and anxiety: A population-based study

OBJECTIVES

Describe patterns of pharmacotherapy and psychological treatment and evaluate receipt of minimally adequate treatment for incident depression and anxiety in individuals with inflammatory arthritis (IA).

METHODS

We used population-based linked administrative health databases from British Columbia, Canada to evaluate pharmacotherapy and psychological treatments for incident depression and/or anxiety among individuals with IA and without IA ('IA-free controls'). We defined minimally adequate pharmacotherapy as antidepressant prescriptions filled with ≥ 84 days' supply and adequate psychological treatment as ≥ 4 counselling/psychotherapy services. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the odds of individuals with IA receiving minimally adequate pharmacotherapy and/or psychological treatment compared to IA-free controls.

RESULTS

6,951 (mean age 54.8 ± 18.3 years; 65.5% female) individuals with IA had incident depression and 3,701 (mean age 52.9 ± 16.8 years; 74.3% female) had incident anxiety. Minimally adequate pharmacotherapy and psychological treatment for depression was respectively observed in 50.5% and 19.6% of those with IA, proportions similar to IA-free controls (pharmacotherapy: aOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.21; psychological: aOR 1.07, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.21). Results were similar regarding anxiety treatment. Individuals with IA had a significantly greater likelihood of dispensing ≥ 1 benzodiazepine (anxiety: IA 45.0%, IA-free controls 39.0%, p-value < 0.001) and ≥ 1 tricyclic antidepressant prescription (anxiety: IA 12.8%, IA-free controls 7.8%, p-value < 0.001). Significantly higher average days' supply of benzodiazepines was observed for IA (anxiety: IA 123.7 days, controls 112.4 days, p-value = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of individuals with IA were not receiving adequate mental health treatment for depression and anxiety, a finding similar for IA-free controls. The undertreatment of mental disorders for people with IA has well-known negative implications for the provision of effective rheumatology care. It remains fundamental to expand publicly funded health care to include mental health services in an effort to address unmet counselling needs.

Antidepressants and Weight Gain: An Update on the Evidence and Clinical Implications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To highlight recent research on antidepressant use and weight change and explore best clinical practices for reducing weight gain and obesity risk in individuals with depression.

RECENT FINDINGS

Research on antidepressant use and weight gain suggests that genetic and biological factors including metabolizer phenotypes and inflammation can help to predict an individual's threshold for weight change among specific agents. For individuals with increased susceptibility to metabolic complications, medications including bupropion, fluoxetine, and newer agents (e.g., gepirone) have shown to be efficacious in improving depressive symptoms while concurrently reducing metabolic risks. Additional areas of focus following antidepressant related weight gain include switching to a weight neutral drug alternative, integrated behavioral interventions, and/or pharmacotherapy including GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., metformin, liraglutide). Individuals experiencing depression are at heightened risk of metabolic disorders and weight gain, which may be further exacerbated by antidepressant treatment. The increased support of weight neutral antidepressant agents in addition to innovative lifestyle interventions, breakthroughs in drug mechanisms, anti-obesity medications and overall familiarity with the side effects of each antidepressant class will help clinicians make appropriate decisions when treating patients with depression.

Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Individual preferences for treatment options for major depressive disorder can impact therapeutic decision making, adherence, and ultimately outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) on patient preferences for major depressive disorder treatment assessed the range of DCE applications in major depressive disorder to document patient stakeholder involvement in DCE development and to identify the relative importance of treatment attributes.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE via Ovid (1946-present), EMBASE (Elsevier interface), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley interface), and PsycINFO (EBSCO interface) databases on 29 May, 2024. Covidence software facilitated the review, which four members completed independently. The review was conducted in two phases: title and abstract and then a full-text review. We used an established quality reporting tool to evaluate selected articles. The Covidence extraction tool was adapted for this study.

RESULTS

A total of 19 articles were included in this review. Most studies elicited preferences for depression treatment (63.2%) and care delivery (10.5%). Two assessed willingness to pay. Individuals prefer a combination of medicine and counseling over each treatment alone. Treatment efficacy, relapse prevention, and symptom relief were among the most important attributes. Individuals were willing to accept larger risks to achieve symptom improvement. Few studies examined preference heterogeneity with latent subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Discrete choice experiments for major depressive disorder treatment preferences enable an assessment of trade-offs for first-line therapeutic options. Patient stakeholders are infrequently involved as collaborators in the DCE development. Few examined preference heterogeneity among subgroups.

Neurobiology and systems biology of stress resilience

Stress resilience is the phenomenon that some people maintain their mental health despite exposure to adversity or show only temporary impairments followed by quick recovery. Resilience research attempts to unravel the factors and mechanisms that make resilience possible and to harness its insights for the development of preventative interventions in individuals at risk for acquiring stress-related dysfunctions. Biological resilience research has been lagging behind the psychological and social sciences but has seen a massive surge in recent years. At the same time, progress in this field has been hampered by methodological challenges related to finding suitable operationalizations and study designs, replicating findings, and modeling resilience in animals. We embed a review of behavioral, neuroimaging, neurobiological, and systems biological findings in adults in a critical methods discussion. We find preliminary evidence that hippocampus-based pattern separation and prefrontal-based cognitive control functions protect against the development of pathological fears in the aftermath of singular, event-type stressors [as found in fear-related disorders, including simpler forms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)] by facilitating the perception of safety. Reward system-based pursuit and savoring of positive reinforcers appear to protect against the development of more generalized dysfunctions of the anxious-depressive spectrum resulting from more severe or longer-lasting stressors (as in depression, generalized or comorbid anxiety, or severe PTSD). Links between preserved functioning of these neural systems under stress and neuroplasticity, immunoregulation, gut microbiome composition, and integrity of the gut barrier and the blood-brain barrier are beginning to emerge. On this basis, avenues for biological interventions are pointed out.

Comparative Effectiveness of Psychotherapy vs Antidepressants for Depression in Heart Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Heart failure (HF) affects more than 6 million adults in the US and more than 64 million adults worldwide, with 50% prevalence of depression. Patients and clinicians lack information on which interventions are more effective for depression in HF.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of behavioral activation psychotherapy (BA) vs antidepressant medication management (MEDS) on patient-centered outcomes inpatients with HF and depression.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted from 2018 to 2022, including 1-year follow-up, at a not-for-profit academic health system serving more than 2 million people from diverse demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. Participant included inpatients and outpatients diagnosed with HF and depression, and data were analyzed as intention-to-treat. Data were analyzed from 2022 to 2023.

Interventions

BA is an evidence-based manualized treatment for depression, promoting engagement in personalized pleasurable activities selected by patients. MEDS involves the use of an evidence-based collaborative care model with care managers providing coordination with patients, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians to only administer medications.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes included physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL), measured using the Short-Form 12-Item version 2 (SF-12); heart failure-specific HRQOL, measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; caregiver burden, measured with the Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure; emergency department visits; readmissions; days hospitalized; and mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results

A total of 416 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.71 [15.61] years; 243 [58.41%] male) were enrolled, with 208 patients randomized to BA and 208 patients randomized to MEDS. At baseline, mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores were 14.54 (3.45) in the BA group and 14.31 (3.60) in the MEDS group; both BA and MEDS recipients experienced nearly 50% reduction in depressive symptoms at 3, 6, and 12 months (eg, mean [SD] score at 12 months: BA, 7.62 (5.73); P < .001; MEDS, 7.98 (6.06); P < .001; between-group P = .55). There was no statistically significant difference between BA and MEDS in the primary outcome of PHQ-9 at 6 months (mean [SD] score, 7.53 [5.74] vs 8.09 [6.06]; P = .88). BA recipients, compared with MEDS recipients, experienced small improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (mean [SD] SF-12 physical score: 38.82 [11.09] vs 37.12 [10.99]; P = .04), had fewer ED visits (3 months: 38% [95% CI, 14%-55%] reduction; P = .005; 6 months: 30% [95% CI, 14%-40%] reduction; P = .008; 12 months: 27% [95% CI, 15%-38%] reduction; P = .001), and spent fewer days hospitalized (3 months: 17% [95% CI, 8%-25%] reduction; P = .002; 6 months: 19% [95% CI, 13%-25%] reduction; P = .005; 12 months: 36% [95% CI, 32%-40%] reduction; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this comparative effectiveness trial of BA and MEDS in patients with HF experiencing depression, both treatments significantly reduced depressive symptoms by nearly 50% with no statistically significant differences between treatments. BA recipients experienced better physical HRQOL, fewer ED visits, and fewer days hospitalized. The study findings suggested that patients with HF could be given the choice between BA or MEDS to ameliorate depression.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03688100.

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adults in the Acute Phase of Major Depressive Disorder: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this guideline from the American College of Physicians (ACP) is to present updated clinical recommendations on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions as initial and second-line treatments during the acute phase of a major depressive disorder (MDD) episode, based on the best available evidence on the comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patient values and preferences, and cost.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on an updated systematic review of the evidence.

AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The audience for this guideline includes clinicians caring for adult patients in the acute phase of MDD in ambulatory care. The patient population includes adults in the acute phase of MDD.

RECOMMENDATION 1A

ACP recommends monotherapy with either cognitive behavioral therapy or a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 1B

ACP suggests combination therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy and a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy versus second-generation antidepressants or combination therapy should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences.

RECOMMENDATION 2

ACP suggests monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of mild major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 3

ACP suggests one of the following options for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder who did not respond to initial treatment with an adequate dose of a second-generation antidepressant: • Switching to or augmenting with cognitive behavioral therapy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) • Switching to a different second-generation antidepressant or augmenting with a second pharmacologic treatment (see Clinical Considerations) (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) The informed decision on the options should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences.