Evaluation of a collaborative care program for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia:Protocol for a multiple case study

Background: Approximately one-third of all patients with schizophrenia are treatment resistant. Worldwide, undertreatment with clozapine and other effective treatment options exist for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). In this respect, it appears that regular health care models do not optimally fit this patient group. The Collaborative Care (CC) model has proven to be effective for patients with severe mental illness, both in primary care and in specialized mental health care facilities. The key principles of the CC model are that both patients and informal caregivers are part of the treatment team, that a structured treatment plan is put in place with planned evaluations by the team, and that the treatment approach is multidisciplinary in nature and uses evidence-based interventions. We developed a tailored CC program for patients with TRS. Objective: In this paper, we provide an overview of the research design for a potential study that seeks to gain insight into both the process of implementation and the preliminary effects of the CC program for patients with TRS. Moreover, we aim to gain insight into the experiences of professionals, patients, and informal caregivers with the program. Methods: This study will be underpinned by a multiple case study design (N=20) that uses a mixed methods approach. These case studies will focus on an Early Psychosis Intervention Team and 2 Flexible Assertive Community treatment teams in the Netherlands. Data will be collected from patient records as well as through questionnaires, individual interviews, and focus groups. Patient recruitment commenced from October 2020. Results: Recruitment of participants commenced from October 2020, with the aim of enrolling 20 patients over 2 years. Data collection will be completed by the end of 2023, and the results will be published once all data are available for reporting. Conclusions: The research design, framed within the process of developing and testing innovative interventions, is discussed in line with the aims of the study. The limitations in clinical practice and specific consequences of this study are explained. International registered Report Identifier(IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35336

Pharmacological prevention of postictal agitation after electroconvulsive therapy—A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundPostictal agitation (PIA) after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a serious clinical problem estimated to occur in 7–36% of patients and recur in 19–54% of patients. PIA has the potential to cause dangerous situations for the patient and staff members aside from the financial impact. To date, it is unclear which pharmacological interventions should be used in the management of PIA. This study aimed to systematically review the (preventative) pharmacological treatment options for PIA after ECT.MethodA systematic search was done in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception until 10 November 2022. We included randomized trials with any pharmacological intervention or comparison and a predefined outcome measure on PIA. Studies that solely included patients with neurodegenerative disorders or stroke were excluded. Data quality was assessed with the RoB2 and GRADE. Meta-analysis was performed if possible. This study was registered on PROSPERO under CRD42021262323.ResultsWe screened 2,204 articles and included 14 studies. Dexmedetomidine was investigated in 10 studies. Alfentanil, lignocaine, esmolol, midazolam, propofol, ketamine, haloperidol, and diazepam were each studied in only one study. Meta-analysis revealed an OR of 0.45 (0.32–0.63), a moderate effect size, in favor of dexmedetomidine than placebo to prevent PIA with very low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). The certainty of the evidence was moderate. The other interventions studied were all found to have low certainty of evidence.ConclusionFor clinical practice, we believe that our results indicate that dexmedetomidine should be considered for the prevention of PIA in patients that have previously experienced PIA

The symptom profile of vascular depression

SUMMARY Objectives Vascular depression is regarded as a subtype of depression, especially in--but not limited strictly to--older persons, and characterized by a specific clinical presentation and an association with (cerebro)vascular risk and disease. It is also known that depression is a risk factor in the development of myocardial infarction. The possibility of identifying depressed subjects at risk of a first cardiac event by their clinical presentation in general practice would have significant implications. Methods We studied the baseline depression symptom profiles of subjects in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam and compared the profile of depressed subjects who had and had not suffered a first cardiac event at a follow-up after eight years. Results We could not confirm the specific symptom profile in depressed subjects who suffered from a first cardiac event at follow-up. Most notably, the presumed specific symptoms of vascular depression, psychomotor retardation, and anhedonia were not significantly associated with the occurrence of a first cardiac event at follow-up. Conclusions In this large community study we failed to identify a difference in the depression symptom profile between incident cardiac and non-cardiac cases

Cohort profile of the longitudinal Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) on etiology, course and consequences of depressive and anxiety disorders

INTRODUCTION: The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA, www.nesda.nl) is a longitudinal, multi-site, naturalistic, case-control cohort study set up to examine the etiology, course and consequences of depressive and anxiety disorders. This paper presents a cohort profile of NESDA. METHODS AND RESULTS: The NESDA sample recruited initially 2329 persons with a remitted or current DSM-IV based depressive (major depressive disorder, dysthymia) and/or anxiety disorder (panic disorder, social phobia, agoraphobia, generalized anxiety disorder), 367 of their siblings and 652 healthy controls, yielding a total of 3348 participants. Half-day face-to-face assessments of participants started in 2004 and since then have been repeated six times over a period of 9 years. A 13-year follow-up assessment is ongoing, at what time we also recruit offspring of participants. Retention rates are generally high, ranging from 87.1% (after 2 years) to 69.4% (after 9 years). Psychiatric diagnostic interviews have been administered at all face-to-face assessments, as was monitoring of clinical characteristics, psychosocial functioning and somatic health. Assessed etiological factors include e.g. early and current environmental risk factors, psychological vulnerability and resilience factors as well as (neuro)biology through hypothesis-driven biomarker assessments, genome-wide and large-scale '-omics' assessments, and neuroimaging assessments. LIMITATIONS: The naturalistic design allows research into course and consequences of affective disorders but is limited in treatment response interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: NESDA provides a strong research infrastructure for research into depressive and/or anxiety disorders. Its data have been used for many scientific papers describing either NESDA-based analyses or joint collaborative consortia-projects, and are in principle available to researchers outside the NESDA consortium

Disorder-specific cognitive profiles in major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder

BACKGROUND: This investigation examines differences in cognitive profiles in subjects with major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: Data were used from subjects with current MDD (n = 655), GAD (n = 107) and comorbid MDD/GAD (n = 266) diagnosis from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). The Composite Interview Diagnostic Instrument was used to diagnose MDD and GAD. Cognitive profiles were measured using the Leiden Index of Depression Sensitivity, the Anxiety Sensitivity Index, and the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. RESULTS: Results showed that differences in cognitive profiles between single MDD and single GAD subjects were present: scores on hopelessness/suicidality and rumination were significantly higher in MDD than GAD, whereas anxiety sensitivity for physical concerns and pathological worry were higher in GAD than MDD. The cognitive profile of comorbid MDD/GAD showed more extreme depression cognitions compared to single disorders, and a similar anxiety profile compared to single GAD subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the commonalities in cognitive profiles in MDD and GAD, there are differences suggesting that MDD and GAD have disorder-specific cognitive profiles. Findings of this investigation give support for models like the cognitive content-specificity model and the tripartite model and could provide useful handles for treatment focus

Sleep, circadian rhythm, and physical activity patterns in depressive and anxiety disorders:A 2-week ambulatory assessment study

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

Familial risk for depressive and anxiety disorders:associations with genetic, clinical, and psychosocial vulnerabilities

BACKGROUND: In research and clinical practice, familial risk for depression and anxiety is often constructed as a simple Yes/No dichotomous family history (FH) indicator. However, this measure may not fully capture the liability to these conditions. This study investigated whether a continuous familial loading score (FLS), incorporating family- and disorder-specific characteristics (e.g. family size, prevalence of depression/anxiety), (i) is associated with a polygenic risk score (PRS) for major depression and with clinical/psychosocial vulnerabilities and (ii) still captures variation in clinical/psychosocial vulnerabilities after information on FH has been taken into account. METHODS: Data came from 1425 participants with lifetime depression and/or anxiety from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety. The Family Tree Inventory was used to determine FLS/FH indicators for depression and/or anxiety. RESULTS: Persons with higher FLS had higher PRS for major depression, more severe depression and anxiety symptoms, higher disease burden, younger age of onset, and more neuroticism, rumination, and childhood trauma. Among these variables, FH was not associated with PRS, severity of symptoms, and neuroticism. After regression out the effect of FH from the FLS, the resulting residualized measure of FLS was still associated with severity of symptoms of depression and anxiety, rumination, and childhood trauma. CONCLUSIONS: Familial risk for depression and anxiety deserves clinical attention due to its associated genetic vulnerability and more unfavorable disease profile, and seems to be better captured by a continuous score that incorporates family- and disorder-specific characteristics than by a dichotomous FH measure

Pain is a risk factor for common mental disorders. Results from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2: a longitudinal, population-based study

Pain might be an important risk factor for common mental disorders. Insight into the longitudinal association between pain and common mental disorders in the general adult population could help improve prevention and treatment strategies. Data were used from the first 2 waves of the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2, a psychiatric epidemiological cohort study among the Dutch general population aged 18 to 64 years at baseline (N = 5303). Persons without a mental disorder 12 months before baseline were selected as the at-risk group (n = 4974 for any mood disorder; n = 4979 for any anxiety disorder; and n = 5073 for any substance use disorder). Pain severity and interference due to pain in the past month were measured at baseline using the Short Form Health Survey. DSM-IV mental disorders were assessed at both waves using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview version 3.0. Moderate to very severe pain was associated with a higher risk of mood (odds ratio [OR] = 2.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33-3.29) or anxiety disorders (OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.27-3.55). Moderate to very severe interference due to pain was also associated with a higher risk of mood (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.30-3.54) or anxiety disorders (OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.05-3.52). Pain was not significantly associated with substance use disorders. No interaction effects were found between pain severity or interference due to pain and a previous history of mental disorders. Moderate to severe pain and interference due to pain are strong risk factors for first-incident or recurrent mood and anxiety disorders, independent of other mental disorders. Pain management programs could therefore possibly also serve as a preventative program for mental disorders