Yang Lu, Su Yousong, Dong Sijia, Wu Tao, Zhang Yongjing, Qiu Hong, Gu Wenjie, Qiu Hong, Xu Yifeng, Wang JianLi, Chen Jun, Fang Yiru
Clinical Research Center and Division of Mood Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Global Epidemiology, Office of Chief Medical Officer, Johnson & Johnson, Shanghai, China.
Front Pharmacol. 2022 Aug 31;13:954973. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.954973. eCollection 2022.
Antidepressant (AD) algorithm is an important tool to support treatment decision-making and improve management of major depressive disorder (MDD). However, little is known about its concordance with real-world practice. This study aimed to assess the concordance between the longitudinal treatment patterns and AD algorithm recommended by a clinical practice guideline in China. Data were obtained from the electronic medical records of Shanghai Mental Health Center (SMHC), one of the largest mental health institutions in China. We examined the concordance between clinical practice and the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) algorithm among a cohort composed of 19,955 MDD patients. The longitudinal characteristics of treatment regimen and duration were described to identify the specific inconsistencies. Demographics and health utilizations of the algorithm-concordant and -discordant subgroups with optimized treatment were measured separately. The overall proportion of algorithm-concordant treatment significantly increased from 84.45% to 86.03% during the year of 2015-2017. Among the patients who received recommended first-line drugs with subsequent optimized treatment ( = 2977), the concordance proportion was 27.24%. Mirtazapine and trazodone were the most used drugs for adjunctive strategy. Inadequate or extended duration before optimized treatment are common inconsistency. The median length of follow-up for algorithm-concordant ( = 811) and algorithm-discordant patients ( = 2166) were 153 days (Q1-Q3 = 79-328) and 368 days (Q1-Q3 = 181-577) respectively, and the average number of clinical visits per person-year was 13.07 and 13.08 respectively. Gap existed between clinical practice and AD algorithm. Improved access to evidence-based treatment is required, especially for optimized strategies during outpatient follow-up.
抗抑郁药(AD)算法是支持治疗决策和改善重度抑郁症(MDD)管理的重要工具。然而,对于其与实际临床实践的一致性却知之甚少。本研究旨在评估中国一项临床实践指南推荐的纵向治疗模式与AD算法之间的一致性。数据来自中国最大的精神卫生机构之一上海精神卫生中心(SMHC)的电子病历。我们在一个由19955例MDD患者组成的队列中,研究了临床实践与加拿大情绪和焦虑治疗网络(CANMAT)算法之间的一致性。描述了治疗方案和疗程的纵向特征,以确定具体的不一致之处。分别测量了算法一致和不一致亚组优化治疗后的人口统计学特征和医疗资源利用情况。2015 - 2017年期间,算法一致治疗的总体比例从84.45%显著增加到86.03%。在接受推荐一线药物并随后进行优化治疗的患者中(n = 2977),一致比例为27.24%。米氮平和曲唑酮是辅助治疗策略中使用最多的药物。优化治疗前疗程不足或延长是常见的不一致情况。算法一致患者(n = 811)和算法不一致患者(n = 2166)的中位随访时间分别为153天(四分位间距Q1 - Q3 = 79 - 328)和368天(Q1 - Q3 = 181 - 577),每人每年平均临床就诊次数分别为13.07次和13.08次。临床实践与AD算法之间存在差距。需要改善循证治疗途径,尤其是门诊随访期间优化治疗策略的途径。