-
Depression and Anxiety Oct 2019Actigraphy may provide a more valid assessment of sleep, circadian rhythm (CR), and physical activity (PA) than self-reported questionnaires, but has not been used...
BACKGROUND
Actigraphy may provide a more valid assessment of sleep, circadian rhythm (CR), and physical activity (PA) than self-reported questionnaires, but has not been used widely to study the association with depression/anxiety and their clinical characteristics.
METHODS
Fourteen-day actigraphy data of 359 participants with current (n = 93), remitted (n = 176), or no (n = 90) composite international diagnostic interview depression/anxiety diagnoses were obtained from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety. Objective estimates included sleep duration (SD), sleep efficiency, relative amplitude (RA) between day-time and night-time activity, mid sleep on free days (MSF), gross motor activity (GMA), and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA). Self-reported measures included insomnia rating scale, SD, MSF, metabolic equivalent total, and MVPA.
RESULTS
Compared to controls, individuals with current depression/anxiety had a significantly different objective, but not self-reported, PA and CR: lower GMA (23.83 vs. 27.4 milli-gravity/day, p = .022), lower MVPA (35.32 vs. 47.64 min/day, p = .023), lower RA (0.82 vs. 0.83, p = .033). In contrast, self-reported, but not objective, sleep differed between people with current depression/anxiety compared to those without current disorders; people with current depression/anxiety reported both shorter and longer SD and more insomnia. More depressive/anxiety symptoms and number of depressive/anxiety diagnoses were associated with larger disturbances of the actigraphy measures.
CONCLUSION
Actigraphy provides ecologically valid information on sleep, CR, and PA that enhances data from self-reported questionnaires. As those with more severe or comorbid forms showed the lowest PA and most CR disruptions, the potential for adjunctive behavioral and chronotherapy interventions should be explored, as well as the potential of actigraphy to monitor treatment response to such interventions.
Topics: Actigraphy; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Circadian Rhythm; Comorbidity; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Exercise; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Netherlands; Self Report; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Surveys and Questionnaires; Time Factors
PubMed: 31348850
DOI: 10.1002/da.22949 -
Turk Psikiyatri Dergisi = Turkish... 2021Dear Editor, The chapter on mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders of the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health...
Dear Editor, The chapter on mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders of the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11) has been now finalized. Reporting of health statistics by Member States to the World Health Organization (WHO) using the new diagnostic system will begin in 2022. The section on mood disorders of the ICD-11 is overall consistent with the corresponding section of the ICD-10. However, the definitions of a depressive and a manic episode have been slightly changed, making them consistent with the DSM-5 (see below), and an independent category of bipolar II disorder has been introduced. A significant effort has been made by the WHO and the American Psychiatric Association to harmonize the diagnostic systems they produce (the ICD-11 and the DSM-5). Indeed, the organizational framework ("metastructure") is now the same in the two systems. Nonetheless, several intentional differences between the two classifications remain, or have emerged as a consequence of changes made in the DSM- 5. Here we briefly summarize the convergences and the divergences between the ICD-11 and the DSM-5 regarding the section on mood disorders (see Table 1). A major convergence between the two diagnostic systems regards the minimum number of symptoms required for the diagnosis of major depression ("depressive episode" in the ICD-11). In the ICD-11, contrary to the ICD-10, the threshold for the diagnosis of depression is the same as in the DSM: at least five depressive symptoms. However, the ICD-11 requires at least five symptoms out of a list of ten (instead of nine as in the DSM-5). The additional symptom is "hopelessness", which has been found to outperform more than half of DSM symptoms in differentiating depressed from non-depressed people (McGlinchey et al. 2006). Table 1. Some Main Differences Between ICD-10, ICD-11 and DSM-5 Concerning the Diagnosis Of Mood Disorders ICD-10 ICD-11 DSM-5 Threshold for diagnosis of depressive episode At least four out of ten symptoms, two of which must be depressed mood, loss of interest and enjoyment, or increased fatigability At least five out of ten symptoms, one of which must be depressed mood or diminished interest or pleasure At least five out of nine symptoms, one of which must be depressed mood or diminished interest or pleasure The threshold for the diagnosis of depression is higher if the person is bereaved Not made explicit Yes No Antidepressant-related mania qualifies as a manic episode No Yes Yes Mixed episode is a separate diagnostic entity Yes Yes No Dysthymia is a separate diagnostic entity Yes Yes No Bipolar II disorder is a separate diagnostic entity No Yes Yes "Qualifiers" ("specifiers") for the diagnoses of mood disorders are provided No Yes Yes CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES IN THE ICD-11 VS. DSM-5 CLASSIFICATION OF MOOD DISORDERS 294 The ICD-11 is also following the DSM-5 in requiring the presence of increased activity or a subjective experience of increased energy, in addition to euphoria (or irritability or expansiveness), for the diagnosis of a manic episode, in order to reduce the chance of false positive cases. The two diagnostic systems also converge in considering that a manic or hypomanic syndrome arising during antidepressant treatment, and enduring beyond the known physiological effects of that treatment, qualifies as a manic or hypomanic episode. Bipolar II disorder has become an independent category in the ICD-11 (it was just mentioned as an example of "other bipolar affective disorders" in the ICD-10). Furthermore, for the first time, the ICD follows the DSM in introducing "qualifiers" (corresponding to DSM-5 "specifiers") to the diagnoses of mood disorders, based on specific aspects of symptomatology or course. There are, however, three important aspects in which the two diagnostic systems diverge. All of them are a consequence of changes made in the DSM-5 that the relevant ICD-11 Committee has regarded as not sufficiently supported by the available research evidence. The first of these divergences concerns the issue of bereavement. In the ICD-11, in line with the DSM-IV and ICD-10 approach, it is stated that "a depressive episode should not be considered if the depressive symptoms are consistent with the normative response for grieving within the individual's religious and cultural context". However, the diagnosis of depression is not excluded if the person is bereaved; the diagnostic threshold is just raised, exactly as it happens in ordinary clinical practice. A depressive episode during bereavement is suggested by the persistence of symptoms for at least one month, and the presence of at least one symptom which is unlikely to occur in normal grief (such as extreme beliefs of low self-worth or guilt not related to the lost loved one, presence of psychotic symptoms, suicidal ideation, or psychomotor retardation). In contrast, the special status conferred by the DSM-IV to bereavement among life stressors has been eliminated in the DSM-5. However, two independent follow-up studies (Mojtabai 2011, Wakefield and Schmitz 2012) have reported that, in people with baseline bereavement-related depression, the risk for the occurrence of a further depressive episode during follow-up is significantly lower than in individuals with baseline non-bereavement-related depression, and not significantly different from the risk of people without a baseline history of depression to develop a first depressive episode during follow-up. This research evidence strongly supports the ICD-11 (and DSM-IV) approach. Furthermore, an intensive public debate has highlighted the consequences that the DSM-5 approach to the bereavement issue could have in several cultures, including a high rate of false positives and a trivialization of the concept of depression and consequently of mental disorder (Kleinman 2012). A second divergence between the ICD-11 and DSM-5 sections on mood disorders concerns mixed states. The category of mixed episode is kept in the ICD-11, defined by several prominent manic and depressive symptoms which either occur simultaneously or alternate very rapidly (from day to day or within the same day) during a period of at least two weeks. The mood state is altered throughout the episode (i.e., the mood should be depressed, dysphoric, euphoric or expansive for at least two weeks). When depressive symptoms predominate, common contrapolar symptoms are irritability, racing or crowded thoughts, increased talkativeness, and increased activity. When manic symptoms predominate, common contrapolar symptoms are dysphoric mood, expressed beliefs of worthlessness, hopelessness, and suicidal ideation. This definition is in line with the ICD-10 and completely consistent with both classic and recent research evidence, as well as with clinical experience. In contrast, the DSM-5 solution to eliminate the category of mixed episode and to introduce a specifier "with mixed features", applicable to manic, hypomanic and depressive episodes, has had the consequence to reduce the visibility of "mixity" in ordinary clinical practice (especially since the specifier is not codable, and is therefore at risk of not being recorded in clinical settings). Moreover, the DSM-5 definition of major depression with mixed features, requiring the presence of at least three "classic" manic symptoms (such as elevated mood, grandiosity, and increased involvement in risky activities) has been criticized for being inconsistent with the concept of mixed depression as delineated in both the classic and recent literature (e.g., Koukopoulos and Sani 2014). A third divergence between the two diagnostic systems consists in the fact that the ICD-11 has not followed the DSM-5 in combining dysthymic disorder and chronic major depressive disorder into a single category ("persistent depressive disorder"). In fact, the relevant ICD-11 Committee expert considered that the evidence that the two disorders represent the same condition, to be addressed therapeutically in the same way, is insufficient. The category of dysthymic disorder is kept in the ICD-11, while a qualifier "current episode persistent" is to be used when the diagnostic requirements for depressive episode have been met continuously for at least the past two years. For a discussion of other aspects of the classification of mood disorders, with the relevant therapeutic implications, as well as for information about the differences between the ICD-11 and the DSM-5 concerning other sections of the classification of mental disorders, we refer the reader to previous contributions (Demyttenaere et al. 2015, Fried et al. 2016, Haroz et al. 2017, Boschloo et al. 2019, Bryant 2019, Forbes et al. 2019, Fusar-Poli et al. 2019, Gureje et al. 2019, 295 Received: 13.09.2021, Accepted: 19.09.2021, Available Online Date: 30.11.2021 MD., University of Campania L. Vanvitelli, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health, Naples, Italy. Dr. Arcangelo Di Cerbo, e-mail: [email protected] https://doi.org/10.5080/u26899 Reed et al. 2019, Kendall 2019, van Os et al. 2019, Cuijpers et al. 2020, Fava and Guidi 2020, Gaebel et al. 2019, 2020, Hasler 2020, Jarrett 2020, Kato et al. 2020, Maj et al. 2020, Reynolds 2020, Sanislow 2020, Stein et al. 2020). An International Advisory Group has been established to supervise the activities of translation, training of professionals and implementation of the ICD-11 chapter on mental disorders (see Giallonardo 2019, Pocai 2019, Perris 2020). The experience in the field will tell whether the above divergences from the DSM-5 in the ICD-11 classification of mood disorders are justified. Indeed, divergences in the description of the same mental health condition may sometimes be useful in order to allow the empirical comparison of different approaches to issues that are controversial. Arcangelo DI CERBO REFERENCES Boschloo L, Bekhuis E, Weitz ES et al (2019) The symptom-specific efficacy of antidepressant medication vs. cognitive behavioral therapy in the treatment of depression: results from an individual patient data meta-analysis. World Psychiatry 18:183-91. Bryant RA (2019) Post-traumatic stress disorder: a state-of-the-art review of evidence and challenges. World Psychiatry 18:259-69. Cuijpers P, Noma H, Karyotaki E et al (2020) A network meta-analysis of the effects of psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and their combination in the treatment of adult depression. World Psychiatry 19:92-107. Demyttenaere K, Donneau AF, Albert A et al (2015) What is important in being cured from depression? Discordance between physicians and patients (1). J Affect Disord 174:390-6. Fava GA, Guidi J (2020) The pursuit of euthymia. World Psychiatry 19:40-50. Fried EI, Epskamp S, Nesse RM et al (2016) What are "good" depression symptoms? Comparing the centrality of DSM and non-DSM symptoms of depression in a network analysis. J Affect Disord 189:314-20. Forbes MK, Wright AGC, Markon KE et al (2019) The network approach to psychopathology: promise versus reality. World Psychiatry 18:272-3. Fusar-Poli P, Solmi M, Brondino N et al (2019) Transdiagnostic psychiatry: a systematic review. World Psychiatry 8:192-207. Gaebel W, Reed GM, Jakob R (2019) Neurocognitive disorders in ICD-11: a new proposal and its outcome. World Psychiatry 18:232-3. Gaebel W, Stricker J, Riesbeck M et al (2020) Accuracy of diagnostic classification and clinical utility assessment of ICD-11 compared to ICD-10 in 10 mental disorders: findings from a web-based field study. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 270:281-9. Giallonardo V (2019) ICD-11 sessions within the 18th World Congress of Psychiatry. World Psychiatry 18:115-6. Gureje O, Lewis-Fernandez R, Hall BJ et al (2019) Systematic inclusion of culture-related information in ICD-11. World Psychiatry 18:357-8. Haroz EE, Ritchey M, Bass JK et al (2017) How is depression experienced around the world? A systematic review of qualitative literature. Soc Sci Med 183:151-62. Hasler G (2020) Understanding mood in mental disorders. World Psychiatry 19:56-7. Jarrett RB (2020) Can we help more? World Psychiatry 19:246-7. Kato TA, Kanba S, Teo AR (2020) Defining pathological social withdrawal: proposed diagnostic criteria for hikikomori. World Psychiatry 19:116-7. Kendall T (2019) Outcomes help map out evidence in an uncertain terrain, but they are relative. World Psychiatry 18:293-5. Kleinman A (2012) Culture, bereavement, and psychiatry. Lancet 379:608-9. Koukopoulos A, Sani G (2014) DSM-5 criteria for depression with mixed features: a farewell to mixed depression. Acta Psychiatr Scand 129:4-16. Kotov R, Jonas KG, Carpenter WT et al (2020) Validity and utility of Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): I. Psychosis superspectrum. World Psychiatry 19:151-72. Maj M, Stein DJ, Parker G et al (2020) The clinical characterization of the adult patient with depression aimed at personalization of management. World Psychiatry 19:269-93. McGlinchey JB, Zimmerman M, Young D et al (2006) Diagnosing major depressive disorder VIII. Are some symptoms better than others? J Nerv Ment Dis 194:785-90. Mojtabai R (2011) Bereavement-related depressive episodes: characteristics, 3-year course, and implications for the DSM-5. Arch Gen Psychiatry 68:920-8. Perris F (2020) ICD-11 sessions at the 19th World Congress of Psychiatry. World Psychiatry 19:263-4. Pocai B (2019) The ICD-11 has been adopted by the World Health Assembly. World Psychiatry 18:371-2. Reed GM, First MB, Kogan CS et al (2019) Innovations and changes in the ICD-11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. World Psychiatry 18:3-19. Reynolds CF 3rd (2020) Optimizing personalized management of depression: the importance of real-world contexts and the need for a new convergence paradigm in mental health. World Psychiatry 19:266-8. Sanislow CA (2020) RDoC at 10: changing the discourse for psychopathology. World Psychiatry 19:311-2. Stein DJ, Szatmari P, Gaebel W et al (2020) Mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders in the OCD-11: an international perspective on key changes and controversies. BMC Med 18:21. van Os J, Guloksuz S, Vijn TW et al (2019) The evidence-based group-level symptom-reduction model as the organizing principle for mental health care: time for change? World Psychiatry 18:88-96. Wakefield JC, Schmitz MF (2012) Recurrence of bereavement-related depression: evidence for the validity of the DSM-IV bereavement exclusion from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study. J Ment Dis 200:480-5.
Topics: Adult; Depressive Disorder, Major; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; Humans; International Classification of Diseases; Mood Disorders; Phobia, Social; Shame
PubMed: 34964106
DOI: 10.5080/u26899 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Oct 2023Suicidal behavior is strongly associated with major affective disorders, but there is a need to quantify and compare specific risk and protective factors in bipolar...
BACKGROUND
Suicidal behavior is strongly associated with major affective disorders, but there is a need to quantify and compare specific risk and protective factors in bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD).
METHODS
In 4307 extensively evaluated major affective-disorder participants with BD (n = 1425) or MDD (n = 2882) diagnosed by current international criteria, we compared characteristics among those with versus without suicidal acts from illness-onset through 8.24 years of follow-up.
RESULTS
Suicidal acts were identified in 11.4 % of participants; 25.9 % were violent and 6.92 % (0.79 % of all participants) were fatal. Associated risk factors included: diagnosis (BD > MDD), manic/psychotic features in first-episodes, family history of suicide or BD, separation/divorce, early abuse, young at illness-onset, female sex with BD, substance abuse, higher irritable, cyclothymic or dysthymic temperament ratings, greater long-term morbidity, and lower intake functional ratings. Protective factors included marriage, co-occurring anxiety disorder, higher ratings of hyperthymic temperament and depressive first episodes. Based on multivariable logistic regression, five factors remained significantly and independently associated with suicidal acts: BD diagnosis, more time depressed during prospective follow-up, younger at onset, lower functional status at intake, and women > men with BD.
LIMITATIONS
Reported findings may or may not apply consistently in other cultures and locations.
CONCLUSIONS
Suicidal acts including violent acts and suicides were more prevalent with BD than MDD. Of identified risk (n = 31) and protective factors (n = 4), several differed with diagnosis. Their clinical recognition should contribute to improved prediction and prevention of suicide in major affective disorders.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Depressive Disorder, Major; Prospective Studies; Suicidal Ideation; Protective Factors; Suicide; Temperament; Risk Factors; Puerperal Disorders
PubMed: 37301296
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.06.018 -
BMC Public Health Nov 2023Depression is increasingly recognized as a worldwide serious, public health concern. A better understanding of depression is important for advancing its management and...
BACKGROUND
Depression is increasingly recognized as a worldwide serious, public health concern. A better understanding of depression is important for advancing its management and learning the difference between major depressive disorder (MDD) and dysthymia. Our aim is to conduct a concurrent analysis of the trends of both MDD and dysthymia in China.
METHODS
The data on depression from 1990 to 2019 were collected from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (GBD 2019). To determine the average annual percent changes (AAPC) and relative risks (RRs), joinpoint regression and the age-period-cohort models were employed, respectively.
RESULTS
The incidence number of MDD and dysthymia continuously increased in China from 1990 to 2019, however, the age-standardized rates (ASR) had a decreasing trend in both men and women. The results from joinpoint regression showed that a declining trend was presented in young people (< 50 years) but an increased trend in the elderly (≥ 50 years) both in men and women, during 1990-2019. Age is the most influential factor for MDD and dysthymia. Age RRs for MDD incidence had an overall increasing trend with age. Period RR in MDD presented a U-shaped pattern, while Cohort RRs presented an inverted U-shaped pattern. On the other hand, RRs in dysthymia for period and cohort effects had no statistical significance, only the age effect presented an inverted U-shaped pattern.
CONCLUSIONS
The disparities in trends observed between MDD and dysthymia during the period of 1990-2019 indicated the significance of distinguishing between these two disorders. The age, period and cohort effects all had a greater impact on MDD than on dysthymia, and age effects presented different influential patterns in these two. To alleviate the burden of depressive disorders in China, proactive measures need to be implemented, with particular attention to the elderly population.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Aged; Adolescent; Depressive Disorder, Major; Dysthymic Disorder; Incidence; China; Cohort Effect
PubMed: 37926849
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-17025-4 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Aug 2023Affective temperaments represent the stable, biologically determined substrates of mood disorders. The relationship between affective temperaments and bipolar disorder... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
BACKGROUND
Affective temperaments represent the stable, biologically determined substrates of mood disorders. The relationship between affective temperaments and bipolar disorder (BD) or major depressive disorder (MDD) has been described. However, the strength of such relationship should be tested while considering other factors influencing the diagnosis of BD/MDD. Literature also lacks a comprehensive description of the interplay between affective temperament and characteristics of mood disorders. The aim of the present study is to address these issues.
METHODS
This is a multicentric observational study including 7 Italian university sites. Five-hundred-fifty-five euthymic subjects with BD/MDD were enrolled and further divided in those with hyperthymic (Hyper, N = 143), cyclothymic (Cyclo, N = 133), irritable (Irr, N = 49), dysthymic (Dysth, N = 155), and anxious (Anx N = 76) temperaments. Linear, binary, ordinal and logistic regressions were performed to assess the association between affective temperaments and i) diagnosis of BD/MDD; ii) characteristics of illness severity and course.
RESULTS
Hyper, Cyclo and Irr were more likely to be associated with BD, together with earlier age of onset and presence of a first-degree relative with BD. Anx and Dysth were more associated with MDD. Differences in association between affective temperaments and characteristics of BD/MDD were observed for hospital admissions, phase-related psychotic symptoms, length and type of depression, comorbidity and pharmacological intake.
LIMITATIONS
Small sample size, cross-sectional design, recall biases.
CONCLUSION
Specific affective temperaments were associated to certain characteristics of illness severity and course of BD or MDD. Evaluation of affective temperaments might help a deeper understanding of mood disorders.
Topics: Humans; Bipolar Disorder; Depressive Disorder, Major; Temperament; Cross-Sectional Studies; Cyclothymic Disorder
PubMed: 37156280
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.04.130 -
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Mar 2023Quetiapine is widely used to treat psychiatric disorders such as major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, dysthymic disorder, and insomnia other than...
AIMS
Quetiapine is widely used to treat psychiatric disorders such as major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, dysthymic disorder, and insomnia other than schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This study investigated the diagnostic distribution of quetiapine use in patients in a psychiatric hospital, the doses of quetiapine prescribed, and the plasma concentrations (Cps) of quetiapine and active metabolites.
METHODS
We enrolled 107 patients who had been prescribed quetiapine for at least 4 weeks. Diagnoses, demographics, and concomitant medications were recorded. Blood sampling was performed in the morning, approximately 12 h after the before-bed dose of quetiapine.
RESULTS
Diagnoses comprised schizophrenia (n = 25), bipolar disorder (n = 51), major depression (n = 15), dysthymic disorder (n = 9), and others (n = 7). The daily dose (DD) of quetiapine ranged from 25 to 800 (175.9 ± 184.4) mg, with the mean Cp being 105.6 ± 215.3 ng/ml, with a mean Cps/DD ratio of 0.58 ± 0.55 ng/ml/mg. There was a moderate positive linear correlation between the dose and Cps of quetiapine (r = 0.60), and the interpatient variation in Cps/DD ratio was up to 26-fold.
CONCLUSION
Quetiapine is used in various doses to treat many psychiatric disorders other than psychosis, and it is usually prescribed as a secondary antipsychotic for symptoms such as insomnia or agitation. A wide interpatient variation of the Cps/DD ratio was noticed. Patients of East Asian descent may exhibit a 50% to 100% increase in the Cps/DD ratio for quetiapine compared with patients of Western descent.
Topics: Humans; Quetiapine Fumarate; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Dibenzothiazepines; Antipsychotic Agents; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 36647121
DOI: 10.1002/npr2.12303 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Oct 2021Major depressive disorder (MDD) has been associated with difficulties in social and interpersonal functioning. Deficits in emotion processing may contribute to the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Major depressive disorder (MDD) has been associated with difficulties in social and interpersonal functioning. Deficits in emotion processing may contribute to the development and maintenance of interpersonal difficulties in MDD. Although some studies have found that MDD is associated with deficits in recognition of emotion in faces, other studies have failed to find any impairment.
METHODS
The present meta-analysis of 23 studies, with 516 dysthymic/depressed participants and 614 euthymic control participants, examined facial emotion recognition accuracy in MDD. Several potential moderators were investigated, including type of emotion, symptom severity, patient status, method of diagnosis, type of stimulus, and stimulus duration.
RESULTS
Results showed that participants with MDD in inpatient settings (Hedges' g = -0.35) and with severe levels of symptom severity (g = -0.42) were less accurate in recognizing happy facial expressions of emotion (g = -0.25) compared to participants in outpatient settings (g = -0.24) and with mild symptoms of depression (g = -0.17). Studies that presented stimuli for longer durations (g = -0.26) tended to find lower accuracy levels in dysthymic/depressed, relative to euthymic, participants.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations include a lack of studies which examined gender identity, as well as other potential moderators.
CONCLUSIONS
Results of the current study support the existence of a broad facial emotion recognition deficit in individuals suffering from unipolar depression. Clinicians should be mindful of this and other research which suggests broad-based deficits in various forms of information processing, including attention, perception, and memory in depression.
Topics: Depressive Disorder, Major; Emotions; Facial Expression; Facial Recognition; Female; Gender Identity; Humans; Male
PubMed: 34229285
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.06.053 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anticancer treatment, suicide risk and possibly the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. efficacy as a continuous outcome. Our secondary outcomes were 2. efficacy as a dichotomous outcome, 3. Social adjustment, 4. health-related quality of life and 5. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies (1364 participants), 10 of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Six of these compared antidepressants and placebo, three compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update, we included four additional studies, three of which contributed data for the primary outcome. For acute-phase treatment response (six to 12 weeks), antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms when compared with placebo, even though the evidence is very uncertain. This was true when depressive symptoms were measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.12; 7 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when measured as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96; 5 studies, 662 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons, we retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and for mirtazapine versus TCAs. There was no difference between the various classes of antidepressants (continuous outcome: SSRI versus TCA: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18; 3 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mirtazapine versus TCA: SMD -4.80, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.10; 1 study, 25 participants). There was a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants versus placebo for the secondary efficacy outcomes (continuous outcome, response at one to four weeks; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences for these outcomes when comparing two different classes of antidepressants, even though the evidence was very uncertain. In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 9 studies, 889 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and TCAs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.22; 3 studies, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the heterogeneous quality of the studies, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were few and of low quality. This review found a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants against placebo in depressed participants with cancer. However, the certainty of evidence is very low and, on the basis of these results, it is difficult to draw clear implications for practice. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which drug to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of people with major depression, also taking into account that data on people with other serious medical conditions suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Furthermore, this update shows that the usage of the newly US Food and Drug Administration-approved antidepressant esketamine in its intravenous formulation might represent a potential treatment for this specific population of people, since it can be used both as an anaesthetic and an antidepressant. However, data are too inconclusive and further studies are needed. We conclude that to better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Mirtazapine; Neoplasms; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 36999619
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011006.pub4