A previous Generalized Anxiety Disorder Impact Survey (GADIS I) performed on 15,399 Belgian patients consulting their primary care physicians, revealed high prevalences of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depression (MD) with important regional differences. The objective of this study (GADIS II) was to replicate previous findings and to evaluate the role of socioeconomic factors in the diagnoses of GAD and MD. A large-scale cross-sectional survey was conducted in a random sample of 377 general practitioners distributed geographically over Belgium and Luxemburg. Each physician was asked to screen 40 consecutive patients at predefined time periods for the presence of GAD and MD using sections of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Socioeconomic parameters were collected. The level of impairment was assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale. In a sample of 13,699 patients, point prevalences of GAD and of MD were found to be 13.4 and 11.0%, respectively. Overall, 17.8% of the population was positive for GAD and/or MD. Both disorders were significantly more frequent in women than in men. Marked regional differences were observed with prevalences for GAD and/or MD of 24.2% in Brussels, 22.7% in Wallonia, 13.6% in Luxemburg and 12.9% in Flanders. Several socioeconomic factors were significantly associated with positive diagnoses: living alone, a low level of education and unemployment. However, regional differences remained significant even after controlling for socioeconomic factors. The study confirms the high prevalence of GAD and MD in primary care and the role of several socioeconomic and regional factors in the illnesses.

Prevalence rates of GAD and MD in primary care in Belgium are comparable to other countries. GAD and MD are disabling conditions. Antidepressants are still used only in a minority of subjects with GAD and/or MD in primary care in Belgium and Luxemburg. The prevalence of GAD and MD appears to be much higher in French-speaking parts of Belgium.

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 6-week study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerability of once or twice daily administration of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors paroxetine and fluoxetine. After a 1-week placebo wash-out, patients suffering from DSM-III major depression and with a score of 18 or more on the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) received either paroxetine or fluoxetine. The patients were assessed for efficacy using the HRSD, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression; for tolerability, adverse events were elicited by the use of a non-leading question and a side effects checklist. The groups of patients were comparable on entry to the study. One hundred patients were recruited into the study, of whom 78 were evaluable for the efficacy analysis. Paroxetine and fluoxetine showed comparable efficacy at the end of the 6-week treatment period, but a statistically significant difference in the number of responders at week 3 in favour of paroxetine was observed. This could suggest an earlier onset of action with paroxetine. Also, associated anxiety symptoms were significantly reduced on paroxetine compared with fluoxetine at week 3. Patients on paroxetine reported fewer adverse events than those on fluoxetine. The most commonly reported adverse events were nausea and vomiting in both groups.

No abstract

This study shows low remission rates in depressed patients treated in general practice. The absence of remission is associated with impairment in work, social and family life. Special attention should be given to identify patients who do not reach remission.