Bellantuono Cesario, Mazzi Maria Angela, Tansella Michele, Rizzo Raffaella, Goldberg David
The Department of Medicine and Public Health, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Ospedale Policlinico, 37134, Verona, Italy.
J Affect Disord. 2002 Oct;72(1):53-9. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0327(01)00418-9.
Studies on antidepressant prescriptions in general practice need to assess the level of prescriptions relative to the need for them ('coverage'), and the variability among doctors.
Two different cut-off scores on a screening test for depression (the Personal Health Questionnaire, PHQ) are used to predict rates for depression, and rates for depressive patients thought likely to benefit from antidepressants (according to a severity criterion) in primary care patients. These two rates are compared with assessments by 11 GPs of recognised depression, as well as with rates of drug prescribed.
The rate for depression thought likely to be treated with antidepressants estimated with the PHQ is broadly comparable with the rate for conspicuous depressive illness, and much lower than that predicted by the PHQ for depression. There was great variability between GPs in their ability to detect depression, and their preparedness to prescribe antidepressants. Antidepressants were only prescribed for 3.5% of the patients, compared to the 8.9% thought to need them. However, antidepressants, mostly SSRIs, are much more likely to be prescribed than tranquillisers.
The limitations of the study are that the PHQ is able to estimate 'coverage' but not 'focusing' (the proportion of those receiving antidepressants who needed them).
Although the rate for conspicuous depression is similar to that for depressions thought to be treated with antidepressants, the 'coverage' of antidepressants was only 39.3%. The variability between physicians confirm the need of good practice guidelines and training packages for the identification and management of depression. Large epidemiological studies are needed to overcome the current lack of clinically relevant data on the quality of antidepressant prescriptions in general practice.
关于全科医疗中抗抑郁药物处方的研究需要评估处方水平与需求程度(“覆盖率”)以及医生之间的差异。
使用抑郁筛查测试(个人健康问卷,PHQ)的两种不同临界值来预测初级保健患者中的抑郁症发病率以及被认为可能从抗抑郁药物中获益(根据严重程度标准)的抑郁症患者发病率。将这两个发病率与11名全科医生对已确诊抑郁症的评估以及药物处方率进行比较。
用PHQ估计的可能接受抗抑郁药物治疗的抑郁症发病率与明显抑郁症发病率大致相当,但远低于PHQ预测的抑郁症发病率。全科医生在检测抑郁症的能力以及开具抗抑郁药物的意愿方面存在很大差异。只有3.5%的患者开具了抗抑郁药物,而据认为有8.9%的患者需要这些药物。然而,抗抑郁药物(主要是选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂)比镇静剂更有可能被开具。
该研究的局限性在于PHQ能够估计“覆盖率”,但无法估计“针对性”(接受抗抑郁药物治疗的患者中真正需要药物的比例)。
尽管明显抑郁症的发病率与被认为用抗抑郁药物治疗的抑郁症发病率相似,但抗抑郁药物的“覆盖率”仅为39.3%。医生之间的差异证实了需要制定良好的实践指南和培训方案,以识别和管理抑郁症。需要进行大规模的流行病学研究,以克服目前全科医疗中抗抑郁药物处方质量缺乏临床相关数据的问题。