Quality of outpatient depression treatment in patients with comorbid substance use disorder

Abstract

Objective:

To investigate the provision of guideline-concordant depression treatment to those with and without substance use disorders in a large, integrated healthcare system. Rationale: Clinical practice guidelines recommend concurrent treatment of co-occurring depression and substance use disorders; however, the degree to which those with substance use disorders receive guideline-concordant treatment for depression is unknown.

Design:

In this retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with a depressive disorder in Fiscal Year 2017 in the United States Veterans Health Administration, we assessed the association of comorbid substance use disorders with guideline-concordant depression treatment, including both medication and psychotherapy, while adjusting for patient demographics and clinical conditions.

Setting:

United States Veterans Health Administration

Participants:

53,034 Veterans Health Administration patients with a new depression diagnosis in Fiscal Year 2017

Results:

Guideline-concordant depression treatment was lower across metrics for those with co-occurring depression and substance use disorders compared to those without substance use disorders. Consistent findings emerged in covariate-adjusted models of antidepressant treatment, such that patients with substance use disorders had 21% lower odds of guideline-concordant acute treatment (adjusted odds ratio=0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.73–0.84) and 26% lower odds of continuation of treatment (adjusted odds ratio=0.74, 95% CI=0.69–0.79). With regard to psychotherapy, patients with co-occurring depression and substance use disorders had 13% lower odds (adjusted odds ratio=0.87, 95% CI=0.82–0.91) of adequate acute phase treatment and 19% lower odds (adjusted odds ratio=0.81; 95% CI=0.73–0.89) of psychotherapy continuation.

Conclusions:

Despite the availability of effective treatments for depression, those with co-occurring substance use disorders are less likely to receive guideline-concordant depression treatment. Efforts to improve the provision of care to those with co-occurring substance use disorders should focus on clinician-based interventions and use of integrated care models to improve the quality of depression treatment.

Introduction

Depression commonly co-occurs with substance use disorders and contributes to poor outcomes(1–5) including increased substance use,(6, 7) more severe disease trajectories,(8, 9) higher rates of suicide,(3, 10–13) fatal overdoses(14) and overall mortality.(15) Antidepressants and psychotherapy are both effective empirically-supported treatments for depression; however, depression remains undertreated with on average a third of those experiencing a major depressive episode receiving no treatment at all.(16, 17) To ensure guideline-concordant depression treatment, initial treatment and continuation of treatment are critical for optimizing effectiveness and mitigating these poor outcomes, especially among patients with comorbid substance use disorders.(18–21)

Best practices support individuals with depression and substance use disorders receive treatment for both disorders,(18) with integrated or concurrent treatments to target substance use disorders and depression simultaneously,(22–26) with a focus on ensuring access to guideline-concordant treatment to optimize effectiveness and reduce the public health burden of depression. Specifically, the American College of Physicians and the Veterans Health Administration’s Clinical Practice Guidelines recommend treating depression with pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy), with a combination of both in cases of severe depression.(27, 28) However, co-occurring substance use disorders present additional barriers beyond those associated with the treatment of depression broadly,(29, 30) in part due to inaccurate clinical beliefs about the need for abstinence to garner benefits of depression treatment,(23, 31) and provider concerns about medication interactions, among other barriers. Prior work shows that only about half (55.4%) of individuals in the United States with co-occurring substance use disorder and depression received any depression treatment.(32)

Treatment of depression is a priority for patients with comorbid substance use disorders. However, no study to date has examined whether those with co-occurring substance use disorders and depression receive similar care to those without substance use disorders across both medication and psychotherapy-based treatment modalities or the degree to which specific substance use disorders are differentially associated with receipt of guideline-concordant depression treatment. As the largest provider of addiction treatment services across the United States, the Veterans Health Administration provides the opportunity to assess the quality of depression treatment between those with and without substance use disorders, and with specific substance use disorders, across the nation.

Methods

Design and data source

This retrospective, cohort study identified veterans receiving care from the Veterans Health Administration who had a new depression diagnosis in Fiscal Year 2017 encompassing an observation period from Fiscal Year 2016 to 2018. Electronic medical record data were obtained from the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse. The Corporate Data Warehouse contains patient characteristics and treatment receipt for Veterans Health Administration patients. The Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Health System Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Sample

Veterans were included if they had a new episode of depression in Fiscal Year 2017. Depression was defined as an inpatient or outpatient encounter for depression using International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes including F32.0–32.5, F32.9, F33.0–33.3, F33.40-F33.42, F33.9 or F34.1 and a Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2 or PHQ-9) screen within a 30 days window of the depression diagnosis that was indicative of active depression (PHQ-2 greater than 2 or PHQ-9 greater than 9). We included only patients with a positive PHQ screen to focus on patients with active symptoms of depression, which would indicate a need for treatment. To obtain a cohort of patients with a new or index depression episode, patients were excluded if they had a depression diagnosis, were prescribed antidepressant medications (except trazodone which is commonly prescribed for sleep), or received psychotherapy treatment in the 12 months prior to the index diagnosis date. Patients must have had a positive PHQ screen in the 30 days prior to or following the depression diagnosis but were excluded if they had a positive screen in the 12 months to 30 days prior to their index diagnosis to capture new episodes of depression. Patients with bipolar, schizophrenia, psychosis, personality or developmental disorders and patients who had more than 30 inpatient days during the 231 days following the depression diagnosis (encompassing the complete treatment window for medication-based treatment) were also excluded to focus on outpatient depression treatment.

Patients with a comorbid substance use disorder were defined as those receiving a substance use disorder diagnosis during the year prior to the depression diagnosis. Substance use disorders were identified using ICD-10 codes for alcohol use disorder(F10.x), opioid use disorder(F11.1 and F11.2), cannabis use disorder(F12.x), cocaine use disorder(F14.x), stimulant use disorder(F15.x), or other substance use disorders(F13.x, F16.x, F18.x, F19.x).

Measures

Outcome variables

To help assess guideline-concordant care, the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) provides widely used depression metrics in the United States. HEDIS includes two measures related to medication-based treatment among those who received an initial prescription within 90 days of the index depression diagnosis: (1) adequate acute phase treatment, defined as receiving an antidepressant prescription within 90 days of the depression diagnosis that provides antidepressant medication for at least 84 of the 114 days following the initial prescription and (2) adequate continuation phase treatment, which is defined as continuing antidepressant medication for 180 of the first 231 days following the initial prescription.(33) Evaluating both acute and continuation phases of depression treatment are critical targets for improving the quality of depression care. Antidepressant medications included are provided in Appendix 1.

Psychotherapy for depression is also an empirically supported treatment for depression.(34) We examined receipt of psychotherapy for depression using measures consistent with previous quality of care metrics for psychotherapy(35) that were constructed to be conceptually analogous to the HEDIS medication-based measures. We assessed both (1) acute phase treatment defined as a psychotherapy session for depression that occurred within 90 days of the index depression diagnosis and (2) continuation phase treatment defined as at least three psychotherapy sessions occurring in the 12 weeks following the first therapy session. Psychotherapy treatment was defined using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes (see Appendix 1). Psychotherapy sessions were included if a depressive disorder was the primary diagnosis to account for concerns that psychotherapy visits can target a variety of conditions including substance use disorders and other psychiatric conditions.

Covariates

Demographic characteristics included: age, gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and geographic locality (i.e., urban/rural). Additional patient characteristics included distance from the treatment facility (≤30 miles, or >30 miles) where patients received the majority of depression treatment, VHA service connection and homelessness, which have been associated with mental health treatment utilization.(36–40) Facility type was also assessed (i.e., Veterans Administration Medical Center, community-based outpatient clinic, and other sites). Comorbid mental health diagnoses included posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; ICD-10 codes: F43.1, F43.10, F43.11, F43.12) and anxiety disorders (ICD-10 codes: F40.x, F41.x, F42.x). The Elixhauser score was included to indicate the severity of comorbid medical conditions,(41–43) and categorized as 0, 1, 2, or 3+ comorbid diagnoses. ICD-10-CM codes were used to identify these psychiatric and medical conditions in the year prior to the index depression episode, with depression and substance use disorders excluded from the Elixhauser score.

Statistical Analysis

All analyses were performed using SAS Enterprise Guide Software, Version 7.1.(44) Sample characteristics across all covariates were compared between those with and without substance use disorders. We conducted four multivariate logistic regression models examining associations between the presence of substance use disorder diagnosis and adequate acute and continuation phases of antidepressant or psychotherapeutic treatment. Listwise deletion was used in the models to handle missing data with a total of 579 patients (1%) excluded due to missingness. All models are presented with adjustment for all covariates. To illustrate our findings, we estimated the percentage of people receiving treatment, across each of the depression care metrics, for those with and without comorbid substance use disorders as the marginal means of balanced population based on the model. The marginal means (percentages) in each group were obtained as the model-based predicted percentages across the underlying covariate combinations assuming balanced distribution across all covariates. The associations of specific substance use disorders with depression treatment were examined by evaluating the above four models with each substance use disorder considered individually (e.g., alcohol, opioid, cannabis, cocaine or other stimulant, and other substance use disorder). In sensitivity analyses, psychotherapy was defined more broadly without the requirement of a primary depressive disorder diagnosis. Finally, we also descriptively examined where patients with substance use disorders were receiving depression treatment.

Results

The study cohort included 53,034 patients diagnosed with a new episode of depression during Fiscal Year 2017 (see Table 1); 27,813 (52.4%) of these patients received any antidepressant treatment and 18,318 (34.5%) received any psychotherapy for depression. Of this cohort, 7,516 (14.2%) had a substance use disorder diagnosis in the year prior to the depressive disorder diagnosis. Despite patients with substance use disorders having more visits in mental health and primary care settings in the year following the depression diagnosis (average 14.11 visits [SD=18.13] compared to 10.20 [SD=10.86] in those without substance use disorders), providing more opportunity for depression treatment, patients with substance use disorders received less guideline-concordant depression treatment across all metrics. Observed rates without adjusting for covariates show that acute and continuation phase antidepressant treatment was provided to 59.4% and 36.3% of those with co-occurring substance use disorder and depression, respectively, compared to 66.2% and 44.8% of those without substance use disorders. With regard to guideline-concordant psychotherapy, 31.6% and 26.8% of those with substance use disorders received acute and continuation phases of depression treatment, respectively, compared to 35.4% and 32.2% of those without substance use disorders. Among those with substance use disorders, the vast majority received most of their psychotherapy or medication-based depression treatment in mental health clinics (47.0% of psychotherapy [n=1117], 59.1% of antidepressants [n=2390]) or primary care/primary care mental health integration clinics (42.7% of psychotherapy [n=1014], 31.8% of antidepressants [n=1287]), with only a small minority of patients receiving depression care in substance use disorder specialty clinics (3.5% of psychotherapy [n=83], 2.5% of antidepressants [n=102]) or other clinics (6.9% of psychotherapy [n=163], 6.6% of antidepressants [n=265]). Patient characteristics by substance use disorder status are provided in Table 1 for all covariates. In brief, patients with substance use disorders were slightly younger and were more likely to be male, black, homeless, and have comorbid psychiatric conditions. Those without a comorbid substance use disorder were more likely to be service-connected, have more comorbid medical conditions, and to live in a rural area.

Table 1.

Characteristics of patients with depression diagnosis with and without substance use disorders (SUDs)

		SUD		No SUD		Chi-square value	p-value	Total N
		N	(%)	N	(%)
Age
	18–64 years	6401	85.2	35,043	77.0	252.6	<.0001	53,034
	65+ years	1115	14.8	10,475	23.0
Gender (male)		6922	92.1	37,251	81.8	487.9	<.0001	53,034
Race
	White	4668	62.1	29,164	64.1	65.8	<.0001	53,034
	American Indian/Alaskan Native	83	1.1	433	1.0
	Asian/Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian	134	1.8	1262	2.8
	Black	2065	27.5	10,922	24.0
	Multi-racial	92	1.2	553	1.2
	Unknown	474	6.3	3184	7.0
Hispanic (yes)		749	10.0	4508	9.9	0.0274	0.8684	53,034
Rural geographic locality		1942	25.9	12,836	28.3	18	<.0001	52,812
Service connected (yes)		4082	54.3	28,499	62.6	187.5	<.0001	53,034
Number of Elixhauser comorbidities
	0	3933	52.3	21,474	47.2	81.5	<.0001	53,034
	1	1797	23.9	11,309	24.9
	2	984	13.1	6,801	14.9
	3+	802	10.7	5,934	13.0
Homeless (yes)		758	10.1	2017	4.4	415.9	<.0001	53,034
PTSD (yes)		2254	30.0	10,455	23.0	174.5	<.0001	53,034
Anxiety disorder (yes)		2090	27.8	10,952	24.1	48.8	<.0001	53,034
Facility
	VAMC	4348	57.9	23,287	51.2	117.1	<.0001	53,012
	CBOC	2770	36.9	19,564	43.0
	Other	392	5.2	2651	5.8
Distance
	<30 miles	6096	81.8	37,581	83.1	8.3	0.004	52,666
	≥30 miles	1359	18.2	7,630	16.9

Abbreviations: SUD=substance use disorder, CI=confidence interval, PTSD=post-traumatic stress disorder, CBOC=community-based outpatient clinic, VAMC=Veteran’s Administration Medical Center

Table 2 shows the results of the multivariate logistic regression models for guideline-concordant depression treatment for those with and without substance use disorders. Figure 2 shows the covariate-adjusted results by specific substance use disorders (also see Supplementary Table 1). Patients with substance use disorders had lower odds of receiving guideline-concordant care including lower odds of receiving adequate acute and continuation phases of antidepressant and psychotherapy treatment (antidepressant: acute phase adjusted odds ratio=0.79, 95% CI: 0.73–0.84, p<0.001, continuation phase adjusted odds ratio=0.74, 95% CI: 0.69–0.79, p<0.001; psychotherapy: acute phase adjusted odds ratio=0.87, 95% CI: 0.82–0.91, p<0.001, continuation phase adjusted odds ratio=0.81, 95% CI: 0.73–0.89, p<0.001).

Table 2.

Model-adjusted depression treatment among those with and without substance use disorders

	Antidepressants				Psychotherapy for Depression
	Acute phase n=27,813		Continuation phase n=27,813		Acute phase n=52,455		Continuation phase n=18,318
	Adjusted odds ratio	95% CI	Adjusted odds ratio	95% CI	Adjusted odds ratio	95% CI	Adjusted odds ratio	95% CI
Substance use disorder	0.79	0.73–0.84***	0.74	0.69–0.79***	0.87	0.82–0.91***	0.81	0.73–0.89***
Age 65+ (ref: 18–64 years)	0.97	0.90–1.04	1.03	0.96–1.11	0.75	0.71–0.79***	0.94	0.86–1.03
Gender (ref: male)	1.13	1.06–1.21***	1.12	1.05–1.19***	1.08	1.03–1.13**	1.20	1.10–1.30***
Race (ref: White)
American Indian/Alaskan Native	0.74	0.57–0.95*	0.87	0.67–1.11	0.90	0.74–1.09	0.98	0.70–1.36
Asian/Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian	0.89	0.76–1.04	0.85	0.73–0.98*	1.02	0.91–1.14	1.00	0.83–1.22
Black	0.53	0.50–0.56***	0.50	0.47–0.53***	1.09	1.04–1.14***	0.86	0.80–0.93***
Multi-racial	0.71	0.58–0.89**	0.82	0.66–1.01	1.15	0.98–1.36	0.88	0.67–1.16
Unknown	0.79	0.71–0.88***	0.69	0.63–0.77***	0.83	0.77–0.90***	0.89	0.78–1.02
Hispanic	0.74	0.68–0.80***	0.78	0.72–0.85***	1.10	1.03–1.17**	0.88	0.79–0.99*
Elixhauser score
1 vs. 0 comorbidities	1.10	1.04–1.17**	1.15	1.08–1.22***	0.91	0.87–0.95***	0.98	0.91–1.06
2 vs. 0 comorbidities	1.09	1.00–1.18*	1.16	1.07–1.25***	0.98	0.93–1.04	1.08	0.98–1.18
3+ vs. 0 comorbidities	1.18	1.08–1.30***	1.30	1.19–1.41***	0.99	0.93–1.05	0.99	0.89–1.10
Geographic locality (ref: urban)	1.10	1.03–1.17**	1.10	1.04–1.17**	0.99	0.95–1.04	1.01	0.94–1.10
Service Connected	1.03	0.97–1.08	1.03	0.98–1.09	1.01	0.97–1.05	1.06	0.99–1.13
Homeless	0.75	0.67–0.84***	0.69	0.62–0.78***	1.05	0.97–1.14	0.93	0.81–1.07
PTSD	0.99	0.93–1.04	1.01	0.96–1.07	0.47	0.45–0.50***	0.77	0.70–0.84***
Anxiety disorder	1.02	0.97–1.08	1.07	1.01–1.13*	0.97	0.93–1.01	0.81	0.75–0.87***
Facility
CBOC vs. VAMC	1.19	1.13–1.25***	1.16	1.10–1.22***	0.99	0.95–1.03	0.97	0.91–1.04
Other vs. VAMC	1.05	0.94–1.17	1.07	0.96–1.19	1.17	1.08–1.26***	0.87	0.76–0.99*
Distance >30 miles (ref: ≤30)	1.07	1.00–1.15	1.01	0.94–1.08	0.81	0.76–0.85***	0.78	0.71–0.86***

^***indicates p<0.001,

^**indicates p<0.01, and

^*indicates p<0.05.

Patients were included in the models for adequate acute and continuation phase antidepressant treatment if they received an index antidepressant prescription (n=27,813). All participants, after listwise deletion of missing data, were included in the acute phase psychotherapy model (n=52,455), which required only a single therapy session. The continuation phase psychotherapy model included only those patients with an index therapy session (n=18,318).

Abbreviations: CI=confidence interval, PTSD=post-traumatic stress disorder, CBOC=community-based outpatient clinic, VAMC=Veteran’s Administration Medical Center

Figure 2.

Guideline-concordant depression treatment by specific substance use disorders.

Covariate adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for receiving acute and continuation phases of depression treatment by substance use disorder compared to patients without a substance use disorder. The adjusted odds ratios for each substance use disorder group (e.g., alcohol use disorder) are based on a comparison to those without the specific substance use disorder. Asterisks indicate a significant difference between those with the substance use disorder (e.g., alcohol use disorder) compared to those without a substance use disorder where *** indicates p<0.001, ** indicates p<0.01, and * indicates p<0.05.

The lower odds of guideline-concordant care correspond to 21% lower odds of receiving acute antidepressant treatment, 13% lower odds of initial psychotherapy treatment, 26% lower odds of adequate continuation of antidepressants and 19% lower odds of continuation of psychotherapy. Based on the predicted probabilities of receipt of guideline-concordant depression treatment, an estimated 55% of people with comorbid substance use, compared to 61% without, received adequate acute antidepressant treatment and 26% of people with comorbid substance use disorders, compared to 29% without, received initial psychotherapy. With regard to continuation of treatment, 33% of people with comorbid substance use, compared to 40% without, received adequate continuation of antidepressants and 21% of people with substance use disorders, compared to 25% without, received adequate continuation of psychotherapy.

Lower quality depression care was evident across multiple specific substance use disorders. Alcohol (adjusted odds ratio=0.87, 95% CI: 0.80–0.94, p<0.001), opioid (adjusted odds ratio=0.74, 95% CI: 0.57–0.95, p<0.05), and cannabis use disorders(adjusted odds ratio=0.81, 95% CI: 0.70–0.94, p<0.01) were all associated with lower odds of adequate acute phase antidepressant treatment. Alcohol (adjusted odds ratio=0.81, 95% CI: 0.75–0.88, p<0.001) and cannabis (adjusted odds ratio=0.74, 95% CI: 0.63–0.87, p<0.001) use disorders were also associated with significantly lower odds of adequate continuation of antidepressants. Similarly, alcohol (adjusted odds ratio=0.86, 95% CI: 0.81–0.91, p<0.001), cocaine (adjusted odds ratio=0.78, 95% CI: 0.66–0.92, p<0.01), and other substance use disorders (adjusted odds ratio=0.71, 95% CI: 0.56–0.89, p<0.01) had lower odds of an initial psychotherapy session for depression. Only veterans with alcohol use disorders (adjusted odds ratio=0.81, 95% CI: 0.72–0.90, p<0.001) were at lower odds of adequate continuation of psychotherapy for depression. Cannabis use disorder diagnosis was associated with slightly increased odds of psychotherapy for depression (adjusted odds ratio=0.1.14, 95% CI: 1.01–1.27, p<0.05). In a sensitivity analysis where psychotherapy sessions were defined broadly, regardless of the treatment target, there was no detected difference in the acute phase but lower odds of continuation of psychotherapy (adjusted odds ratio=0.89, 95% CI: 0.82–0.98, p<0.01) among those with a substance use disorder compared to those without a substance use disorder (see Supplementary Table 2).

Several demographic characteristics, psychiatric and medical comorbidities, and contextual factors were also associated with lower odds of receiving guideline-concordant depression treatment (see Table 2 for adjusted odds ratios and 95% CIs). In general, racial and ethnic minorities and those experiencing homelessness had lower odds of receiving guideline-concordant antidepressant treatment. Those from rural areas and those with medical comorbidities, as measured by the Elixhauser score, had higher odds of adequate antidepressant treatment. Those with additional psychiatric comorbidities (i.e., PTSD or anxiety disorders) and those that lived farther away from a healthcare facility had lower odds of receiving adequate psychotherapy.

Discussion

In this large national sample, we found that patients with comorbid depression and substance use disorders receive lower quality care than those with depression but without substance use disorders. After accounting for demographic, medical, psychiatric, and contextual factors, patients with substance use disorders had lower odds of adequate acute phase treatment (21% and 13% lower for antidepressant and psychotherapy, respectively) and lower odds of adequate continuation of treatment (26% and 19% lower for antidepressant and psychotherapy, respectively) for depression. Despite having higher overall healthcare utilization, patients with substance use disorder still received less guideline-concordant care for depression. These results are consistent with prior work showing reductions in any depression treatment among patients with comorbid substance use disorders(32) including less guideline-concordant antidepressant treatment.(45) By assessing both antidepressant medications and psychotherapy for depression, we found that psychotherapy does not account for the decreased utilization of medication-based interventions among patients with comorbid substance use. Indeed, guideline-concordant antidepressant and psychotherapy treatments are consistently lower across depression care metrics in those with comorbid substance use disorders. Although the magnitude of difference (~20% lower odds) may seem modest, both depression and substance use disorders are highly prevalent such that even modest differences amount to large numbers of individuals. These findings highlight the opportunity for increased depression treatment across both treatment modalities for those with substance use disorders to achieve guideline-concordant care.

Increased identification of those in need of treatment using universal screenings, the establishment of clinical practice guidelines, and development of quality metrics for care has led to substantial progress in depression care.(22, 23, 33, 46) Nonetheless, depression remains vastly undertreated(16, 46) with observed rates of guideline-concordant depression care in the current study ranging from 66.2% of patients without substance use disorders receiving adequate acute phase antidepressant treatment to 32.2% of these patients receiving adequate continuation of psychotherapy. The unmet treatment need is even greater among those with co-occurring substance use disorders. Substance use disorders and depression affect each other bidirectionally(47, 48) and are most effectively treated concurrently.(18, 49, 50) Prior meta-analytic work shows that receipt of high-quality depression care improves depression outcomes across different substance use disorders.(23, 34) The most improvement from treating depression (i.e., largest effects) is seen in those with co-occurring alcohol use disorders.(23) Despite this evidence of improved outcomes with depression treatment, we found markedly lower odds of depression treatment for those with co-occurring alcohol use disorder and depression (see Figure 2).

Inequity in guideline-concordant care is likely related to multiple factors including both patient and structural barriers. Those with co-occurring depression and substance use disorder often suffer from complex psychological presentations characterized by multiple symptoms, such as reduced motivation, low energy, impaired cognition, disorganization, as well as continued use or relapse to substance use. These symptoms, in addition to experiencing stigma around both depression and substance use disorders, can impede a patient’s ability to engage with treatment plans and can lead to lower treatment retention.(51, 52, 53) Barriers to retention are well documented in treatments for substance use disorders,(54, 55) and may be captured, in part, by the lower rates of depression treatment continuation among those with comorbid substance use disorders. As these patients may be more likely to drop out or be nonadherent with treatment, interventions are needed that target improved treatment retention, especially for high-risk patients such as those with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. Of note, individuals with co-occurring depression and substance use disorders report more unmet need for mental health services than those without substance use disorders despite receiving higher rates of mental health services in general, including both psychotherapy and medication.(56) Receipt of less guideline-concordant depression treatment in those with co-occurring depression and substance use disorders may paradoxically contribute to greater mental health utilization due to receiving inadequate or piecemeal services that fail to achieve treatment goals, resulting in a continued need for care.

Structural barriers contribute to inequality of depression treatment for those with substance use disorders including barriers related to the availability of depression treatment and how depression care is provided in both substance use disorder specialty and other settings.(57) Insufficient provider training in the assessment and treatment of complex presentations such as patients with comorbid depression and substance use disorders may contribute to inaccurate beliefs and stigmas, an inability to accurately identify co-occurring disorders,(58–60) a lack of awareness of appropriate referral sources,(61, 62) and a lack of preparedness to treat co-occurring disorders.(63) For example, among medical residents, approximately one in ten report feeling unprepared to treat patients with substance use disorder and/or depression.(63) Lack of training may lead to contraindicated treatment plans such as stipulations that patients complete substance use disorder treatment and achieve a period of abstinence before addressing depression, limiting access to guideline-concordant depression treatment for patients with substance use disorders. Providing training, targeted feedback, and facilitation strategies for providers to reduce stigma, correct inaccurate beliefs, and increase awareness of best practices for co-occurring substance use disorders and depression is needed to improve the provision of depression treatment.

Institutional barriers, such as factors that systematically impair access for certain groups of patients, also contribute to disparities in depression treatment for those with substance use disorders. Organizational configuration in healthcare settings may be a barrier to concurrent treatment of depression and substance use disorders. Disorder-specific clinics (e.g., substance use disorder specialty clinics) can make it challenging to integrate treatment approaches. Prior work found antidepressant treatment predominantly in primary care for those with co-occurring depression and alcohol use,(58) we find that antidepressant treatment, as well as psychotherapy, is also often provided in mental health and integrated primary care and mental health clinics.

To maximize improvements in depression care for the sizable number of patients with comorbid substance use disorders, efforts need to be targeted to general mental health and integrated primary care and mental health clinics because these settings have much more expertise in behavioral health (compared to primary care) and are where many of these patients are being seen. However, historically, clinicians in these clinics have reported a lack of comfort in addressing the needs of patients with substance use disorders without additional training.(64) One potential model for improvement is care management, which facilitates patient care with structured coordination and communication between treating providers and improves depression treatment outcomes in general,(60) with initial evidence that specifically designed collaborative care models improve outcomes for those with substance use disorders and depression.(61) Noteworthy barriers to scalable collaborative care models, particularly outside of the Veterans Health Administration, include insufficient reimbursement for care management services that are needed to facilitate effective treatment across disorders and specialities(60) and ongoing concerns about cost-effectiveness of these models. Collaborative care models identify unmet treatment needs, lead to additional service provision, and thus require large up-front costs for downstream improvements in overall health and subsequent service utilization reductions.(61) At the same time, depression-specific treatment should also be further enhanced in existing substance use specialty settings and dual diagnosis clinics specializing in depression and substance use disorder similar to the integrated PTSD and substance use disorder clinic model currently available in the Veterans Health Administration system.

Several characteristics other than co-occurring substance use disorders were also associated with quality depression treatment. Consistent with prior work on initiation of depression treatment in primary care mental health integration clinics,(65) patients who were younger and female had higher odds of guideline-concordant depression treatment, across medication or psychotherapy modalities. Lower odds of psychotherapy but not antidepressants were observed in those with co-occurring psychiatric disorders and among those living farther from a healthcare treatment setting. People living in more rural settings, farther from medical centers, may experience fewer barriers to medication-based treatments, which are frequently received from general medicine providers, than psychotherapy, which may require access to specialty mental health providers and require burdensome frequent office visits. Nearly all racial and ethnic minority groups were less likely to receive adequate medication-based treatment. This relationship was most pronounced among those identifying as Black, who were half as likely to receive guideline-concordant antidepressant depression treatment compared to individuals that identified as White. This pattern may be, in part, due to patient preference(64, 65) but is likely compounded by less frequent assessment and less treatment of co-occurring mental health problems among marginalized groups.(59–63).

Our study has several limitations. First, the sample is limited to veterans in care within the Veterans Health Administration system, which may limit the generalizability of our findings. However, the Veterans Health Administration is the largest single healthcare provider and offers a granular look at services rendered otherwise unavailable through any other healthcare dataset. Second, this analysis does not include services received outside of the Veterans Health Administration system (e.g., through a community healthcare setting). Third, the sample selection criteria (i.e., new depression diagnosis in Fiscal Year 2017 and a positive PHQ depression screen within 30 days of the diagnosis) may limit the generalizability of findings to the degree that these criteria may not capture some people with depression (e.g., pre-existing diagnosis, noncompletion of depression screen). Fourth, the indicators of adequate acute and continuation phases of care are one measure of the quality of depression care, and are the most often used measures, but do not encapsulate all features relevant to high-quality depression care.

In summary, our study of patients in a national healthcare system indicates a treatment gap in guideline-concordant depression treatment among those with substance use disorders compared to those without. Future research should focus on ways to increase delivery of empirically-supported depression treatment to those with substance use disorders, including targeted interventions for patients and providers and implementation of collaborative care models to reduce barriers for concurrent treatment. Together, these strategies will promote more equitable provision of medication and therapy for patients with depression, including those with substance use disorders.

Figure 1.

Flow diagram of study cohort

Table 3.

Model-adjusted depression treatment across specific substance use disorders

	Antidepressants				Psychotherapy for Depression
	Acute phase n=27,813		Continuation phase n=27,813		Acute phase n=52,455		Continuation phase n=18,318
	Adjusted odds ratio	95% CI	Adjusted odds ratio	95% CI	Adjusted odds ratio	95% CI	Adjusted odds ratio	95% CI
Alcohol use disorder	0.87	0.80–0.94***	0.81	0.75–0.88***	0.86	0.81–0.91***	0.81	0.72–0.90***
Opioid use disorder	0.74	0.57–0.95*	0.79	0.61–1.03	0.96	0.78–1.17	0.93	0.64–1.35
Cannabis use disorder	0.81	0.70–0.94**	0.74	0.63–0.87***	1.14	1.01–1.27*	0.93	0.76–1.13
Cocaine or other stimulant use disorder	0.81	0.66–1.01	0.82	0.65–1.03	0.78	0.66–0.92**	0.98	0.72–1.33
Other substance use disorder	0.84	0.63–1.12	0.88	0.66–1.19	0.71	0.56–0.89**	1.28	0.85–1.93
Age 65+ (ref: 18–64 years)	0.97	0.90–1.04	1.03	0.96–1.11	0.75	0.71–0.79***	0.94	0.86–1.03
Gender (ref: male)	1.14	1.06–1.21***	1.12	1.05–1.19***	1.08	1.02–1.13**	1.20	1.11–1.30***
Race (ref: White)
American Indian/Alaskan Native	0.74	0.57–0.95*	0.87	0.67–1.11	0.90	0.74–1.09	0.98	0.70–1.37
Asian/Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian	0.89	0.76–1.05	0.85	0.73–0.99*	1.02	0.91–1.14	1.01	0.83–1.22
Black	0.53	0.50–0.56***	0.50	0.47–0.53***	1.09	1.04–1.14***	0.86	0.80–0.93***
Multi-racial	0.71	0.58–0.89**	0.82	0.66–1.01	1.16	0.98–1.36	0.88	0.66–1.16
Unknown	0.79	0.71–0.88***	0.69	0.63–0.77***	0.84	0.77–0.90***	0.89	0.78–1.02
Hispanic	0.74	0.68–0.80***	0.78	0.72–0.85***	1.10	1.03–1.17**	0.89	0.79–0.99*
Elixhauser score
1 vs. 0 comorbidities	1.10	1.03–1.17**	1.15	1.08–1.22***	0.91	0.87–0.95***	0.98	0.91–1.06
2 vs. 0 comorbidities	1.09	1.00–1.18*	1.16	1.07–1.25***	0.98	0.93–1.04	1.08	0.98–1.18
3+ vs. 0 comorbidities	1.18	1.08–1.30***	1.30	1.19–1.41***	0.99	0.93–1.05	0.99	0.89–1.10
Geographic locality (ref: urban)	1.10	1.03–1.17**	1.10	1.04–1.17**	0.99	0.95–1.03	1.01	0.94–1.10
Service Connected	1.03	0.97–1.08	1.03	0.98–1.09	1.00	0.97–1.04	1.06	0.99–1.13
Homeless	0.76	0.68–0.84***	0.69	0.62–0.78***	1.06	0.98–1.15	0.92	0.80–1.06
PTSD	0.98	0.93–1.04	1.01	0.95–1.07	0.47	0.45–0.50***	0.77	0.70–0.84***
Anxiety disorder	1.02	0.97–1.08	1.07	1.01–1.13*	0.97	0.93–1.01	0.81	0.75–0.87***
Facility
CBOC vs. VAMC	1.19	1.13–1.25***	1.16	1.10–1.22***	0.99	0.95–1.02	0.97	0.91–1.04
Other vs. VAMC	1.05	0.94–1.17	1.07	0.96–1.19	1.17	1.08–1.26***	0.87	0.76–1.00*
Distance > 30 miles (ref: ≤30)	1.08	1.00–1.16*	1.01	0.94–1.08	0.81	0.77–0.85***	0.78	0.71–0.86***

^***indicates p<0.001,

^**indicates p<0.01, and

^*indicates p<0.05.

Patients were included in the models for adequate acute and continuation phase antidepressant treatment if they received an index antidepressant prescription (n=27,813). All participants, after listwise deletion of missing data, were included in the acute phase psychotherapy model (n=52,455), which required only a single therapy session. The continuation phase psychotherapy model included only those patients with an index therapy session (n=18,318).

Abbreviations: CI=confidence interval, PTSD=post-traumatic stress disorder, CBOC=community-based outpatient clinic, VAMC=Veteran’s Administration Medical Center

Appendix 1:

Included antidepressant medications: Amitriptyline, Amoxapine, Bupropion, Citalopram, Clomipramine, Desvenlafaxine, Desipramine, Doxepin, Duloxetine, Escitalopram, Fluoxetine, Fluvoxamine, Imipramine, Isocarboxazid, Maprotiline, Mirtazapine, Nefazodone, Nortriptyline, Paroxetine,Phenelzine, Protriptyline, Sertraline, Tranylcypromine, Trimipramine, Venlafaxine, Selegiline, Vilazodone, Levomilnacipran, Vortioxetine

Psychotherapy CPT codes: 90804, 90805, 90806, 90807, 90808, 90809, 90810, 90811, 90812, 90813, 90814, 90815, 90816, 90817, 90818, 90819, 90821, 90822, 90823, 90824, 90826, 90827, 90828, 90829, 90832, 90833, 90834, 90836, 90837, 90838, 90839, 90840, 90845, 90846, 90847, 90849, 90853)