No abstract

BackgroundThe dominant diagnostic model of the classification of depression today is unitarian; however, since Kurt Schneider (1920) introduced the concept of endogenous depression and reactive depression, the binary model has still often been used on a clinical basis. Notwithstanding this, to our knowledge, there have been no collective data on how psychiatrists differentiate these two conditions. We therefore conducted a survey to examine how psychiatrists in Japan differentiate patients with major depressive disorder who present mainly with melancholic features and those with reactive features.MethodsThree case scenarios of melancholic and reactive depression, and one-in-between were prepared. These cases were designed to present with at least 5 symptoms listed in the DSM-IV-TR with severity being mild. We have sent the questionnaires regarding treatment options and diagnosis for those three cases on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “not appropriate”, 4 = “cannot tell”, and 7 = “appropriate”). Five hundred and two psychiatrists from over one hundred hospitals and community clinics throughout Japan have participated in this survey.ResultsThe melancholic case resulted significantly higher than the reactive case on either antidepressants (mean ± SD: 5.9 ± 1.2 vs. 3.6 ± 1.7, p < 0.001), hypnotics (mean ± SD: 5.5 ± 1.1 vs. 5.0 ± 1.3, p < 0.001), and electroconvulsive therapy (mean ± SD: 1.5 ± 0.9 vs. 1.2 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). On the other hand, the reactive case resulted in significantly higher scores compared to the melancholic case and the one- in-between cases in regards to psychotherapy (mean ± SD: 4.9 ± 1.4 vs. 4.3 ± 1.4 vs. 4.7 ± 1.5, p < 0.001, respectively). Scores for informing patients that they suffered from “depression” were significantly higher in the melancholic case, compared to the reactive case (mean ± SD: 4.7 ± 1.7 vs. 2.2 ± 1.4, p < 0.001).ConclusionsJapanese psychiatrists distinguish between major depressive disorder with melancholic and reactive features, and thus choose different treatment strategies regarding pharmacological treatment and psychotherapy.

Background Antipsychotics are commonly prescribed in high doses in combination with multiple psychotropic drugs. This study focused on the high‐dose antipsychotic prescriptions in patients with schizophrenia, while aiming to identify their associations with patients’ characteristics and concurrent psychotropic prescriptions. Methods This cross‐sectional study used claims data from a prefecture in Japan, between October 2014 and March 2015, to investigate antipsychotic prescriptions in adult outpatients with schizophrenia. The objective variable was the presence/absence of a high‐dose prescription. The explanatory variables included sex, age (category), presence of comorbid conditions, and the use of psychiatrist's therapy. Results After exclusion, a total of 13 471 patients with schizophrenia were analyzed. The frequency of high‐dose prescriptions was higher in men, with chlorpromazine‐equivalent values highest in the age ranges of 45‐54 and 35‐44 years for men and women, respectively. Patients aged below 65 years with cerebrovascular diseases showed a decrease in high‐dose prescriptions. There was a high frequency of polypharmacy psychotropic drug use in combination with a high‐dose antipsychotic prescription in patients aged below 65 years. Conclusion High‐dose antipsychotics are often used in combination with several psychotropic agents in patients with schizophrenia. Our findings emphasize the need to evaluate the prescribing behavior of physicians to avoid high‐dose antipsychotic prescriptions for improved patient care.