Diagnosis at the first episode to differentiate antidepressant treatment responses in patients with mood and anxiety disorders

Item does not contain fulltextRationale: Co-morbidity of mood and anxiety disorders is often ignored in pharmacotreatment outcome studies and this complicates the interpretation of treatment response. The clinical trials are usually based on single categories from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Objectives: The present study is a first attempt to differentiate the responses to antidepressants using a design that differs from that used in previous clinical trials. To avoid bias due to co-morbidity, we included patients with any DSM-III-R diagnosis of mood or anxiety disorder for which antidepressant treatment was indicated. We also explored the role of the diagnosis at the first episode in the efficacy of the different antidepressants. Methods: A total of 92 outpatients with a mood and/or anxiety disorder were randomly assigned to treatment with imipramine or fluvoxamine in a 6-week study. The diagnosis at the first episode – or primary diagnosis – was available for 78 patients, 40 with a primary depression and 38 with a primary anxiety disorder. Results: Analyses using the MIXED procedure for repeated measures showed no general differences between treatment with imipramine and treatment with fluvoxamine. When the primary diagnoses were taken into consideration, differentiation occurred. Patients with primary depression showed better responses to imipramine than to fluvoxamine. The assumption that patients with primary anxiety disorder would respond better to fluvoxamine than imipramine was observed for only the Clinical Global Impression. Conclusions: The results suggest that the nature of the first illness episode may be more valuable than the DSM categories of mood or anxiety disorders, which may lend support to the concept of primary versus secondary depression for purposes of differentiating treatment responses. Given the exploratory nature of the study, however, replication of our finding is needed

The end of the laboratory developed test as we know it? Recommendations from a national multidisciplinary taskforce of laboratory specialists on the interpretation of the IVDR and its complications

The in vitro diagnostic medical devices regulation (IVDR) will take effect in May 2022. This regulation has a large impact on both the manufacturers of in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD) and clinical laboratories. For clinical laboratories, the IVDR poses restrictions on the use of laboratory developed tests (LDTs). To provide a uniform interpretation of the IVDR for colleagues in clinical practice, the IVDR Task Force was created by the scientific societies of laboratory specialties in the Netherlands. A guidance document with explanations and interpretations of relevant passages of the IVDR was drafted to help laboratories prepare for the impact of this new legislation. Feedback from interested parties and stakeholders was collected and used to further improve the document. Here we would like to present our approach to our European colleagues and inform them about the impact of the IVDR and, importantlywewould like to present potentially useful approaches to fulfill the requirements of the IVDR for LDTs.Genetics of disease, diagnosis and treatmen

Blood Pressure During Endovascular Treatment Under Conscious Sedation or Local Anesthesia

Objective To evaluate the role of blood pressure (BP) as mediator of the effect of conscious sedation (CS) compared to local anesthesia (LA) on functional outcome after endovascular treatment (EVT). Methods Patients treated in the Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN) Registry centers with CS or LA as preferred anesthetic approach during EVT for ischemic stroke were analyzed. First, we evaluated the effect of CS on area under the threshold (AUT), relative difference between baseline and lowest procedural mean arterial pressure ( increment LMAP), and procedural BP trend, compared to LA. Second, we assessed the association between BP and functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS]) with multivariable regression. Lastly, we evaluated whether BP explained the effect of CS on mRS. Results In 440 patients with available BP data, patients treated under CS (n = 262) had larger AUTs (median 228 vs 23 mm Hg*min), larger increment LMAP (median 16% vs 6%), and a more negative BP trend (-0.22 vs -0.08 mm Hg/min) compared to LA (n = 178). Larger increment LMAP and AUTs were associated with worse mRS (adjusted common odds ratio [acOR] per 10% drop 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-0.97, and acOR per 300 mm Hg*min 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.97). Patients treated under CS had worse mRS compared to LA (acOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.87) and this association remained when adjusting for increment LMAP and AUT (acOR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42-0.92). Conclusions Large BP drops are associated with worse functional outcome. However, BP drops do not explain the worse outcomes in the CS group.Paroxysmal Cerebral Disorder