Study Query Show help

Exact matching Semantic

BACKGROUND: Late-life depression is common among older adults living in nursing homes (NHs). Over the last 30 years there has been an increase in the rates of prescription of antidepressant medications across all ages, with the largest rise reported in older adults. This study aimed to describe the pattern of antidepressant medication use among NH residents from 7 European countries and Israel and to examine patient and facilities characteristics that may account for it. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from the SHELTER study, an observational longitudinal cohort study that collected comprehensive resident data using the interRAI Long-Term Care Facility instrument in 7 European Countries and Israel. Descriptive statistics were used to examine sample characteristics. Potential correlates of antidepressant medication use were identified using multiple logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: Among 4023 residents entering the study, 32% had depressive symptoms and nearly half of these individuals used antidepressants. Antidepressant medication use varied by country, with a prevalence in the overall sample of 35.6% (n = 1431). Among antidepressant users, 59.9% were receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). The strongest correlates of antidepressant use included reported diagnosis of anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, pain, falls and high level of social engagement. Age over 85 years, living in facilities located in rural areas and a diagnosis of schizophrenia reduced the likelihood of being prescribed with an antidepressant. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of residents in European long-term care facilities receive antidepressant medications. The decision to prescribe antidepressants to NH residents seems to be influenced by both patient and facility characteristics. Future longitudinal studies should evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressant use in NHs thus providing evidence for recommendations for clinical practice.

MeSH
Antidepressive Agents * therapeutic use MeSH
Long-Term Care * MeSH
Humans MeSH
Longitudinal Studies MeSH
Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
Aged MeSH
Check Tag
Humans MeSH
Aged MeSH
Publication type
Journal Article MeSH
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
Geographicals
Europe MeSH
Israel MeSH

Article

Treatment De-escalation in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: An Observational Study

... In this study, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes between patients who de-escalated therapy versus ...

CNS drugs. 2025 ; 39 (4) : 403-416. [pub] 20250214

CNS Drugs
ISSN 1179-1934
Medvik
Source

BACKGROUND: In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), extended exposure to high-efficacy disease modifying therapy may increase the risk of side effects, compromise treatment adherence, and inflate medical costs. Treatment de-escalation, here defined as a switch to a lower efficacy therapy, is often considered by patients and physicians, but evidence to guide such decisions is scarce. In this study, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes between patients who de-escalated therapy versus those who continued their therapy. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of data from an observational, longitudinal cohort of 87,239 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) from 186 centers across 43 countries, we matched treatment episodes of adult patients with RRMS who underwent treatment de-escalation from either high- to medium-, high- to low-, or medium- to low-efficacy therapy with counterparts that continued their treatment, using propensity score matching and incorporating 11 variables. Relapses and 6-month confirmed disability worsening were assessed using proportional and cumulative hazard models. RESULTS: Matching resulted in 876 pairs (de-escalators: 73% females, median [interquartile range], age 40.2 years [33.6, 48.8], Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 2.5 [1.5, 4.0]; non-de-escalators: 73% females, age 40.8 years [35.5, 47.9], and EDSS 2.5 [1.5, 4.0]), with a median follow-up of 4.8 years (IQR 3.0, 6.8). Patients who underwent de-escalation faced an increased hazard of future relapses (hazard ratio 2.36 and 95% confidence intervals [CI] [1.79-3.11], p < 0.001), which was confirmed when considering recurrent relapses (2.43 [1.97-3.00], p < 0.001). It was also consistent across subgroups stratified by age, sex, disability, disease duration, and time since last relapse. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this observational analysis, de-escalation may not be recommended as a universal treatment strategy in RRMS. The decision to de-escalate should be considered on an individual basis, as its safety is not clearly guided by specific patient or disease characteristics evaluated in this study.