Treatment for comorbid depressive disorder or subthreshold depression in diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To provide an estimate of the effect of interventions on comorbid depressive disorder (MDD) or subthreshold depression in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Psychinfo, Embase and the Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials evaluating the outcome of depression treatments in diabetes and comorbid MDD or subthreshold symptoms published before August 2019 compared to Care As Usual (CAU), placebo, waiting list (WL), or active comparator treatment as in a comparative effectiveness trial (CET). Primary outcomes were depressive symptom severity and glycaemic control. Cohen’s d are reported. Results Forty-three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were selected and 32 RCTs comprising 3543 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that, compared to CAU, placebo or WL, all interventions showed a significant effect on combined outcome 0,485 (95%CI 0,360;0,609). All interventions showed a significant effect on depression. Pharmacological treatment, group-therapy, psychotherapy and collaborative care had a significant effect on glycaemic control. High baseline depression score was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c and depressive outcome. High baseline HbA1c was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c. Conclusion All treatments are effective for comorbid depression in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Over the last decade, new interventions with large effect sizes have been introduced, such as group-based therapy, online treatment and exercise. Although all interventions were effective for depression, not all treatments were effective for glycaemic control. Effective interventions in comorbid depressive disorder may not be as effective in comorbid subthreshold depression. Baseline depression and HbA1c scores modify the treatment effect. Based on the findings, we provide guidance for treatment depending on patient profile and desired outcome, and discuss possible avenues for further research

Chest pain, depression and anxiety in coronary heart disease:Consequence or cause? A prospective clinical study in primary care

Objective To examine if chest pain increases the risk of depression and anxiety, or, on the other hand, depression and anxiety increase the risk of chest pain onset in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Design Prospective clinical study. Setting 16 general practices in the Greater London Primary Care Research Network. Participants 803 participants with a confirmed diagnosis of CHD at baseline on the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) CHD registers. Main outcome measures Rose Angina Questionnaire, HADS depression and anxiety subscales and PHQ-9 were assessed at seven time points, each 6 months apart. Multi-Level Analysis (MLA) and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) were applied. Results Chest pain predicts both more severe anxiety and depression symptoms at all time points until 30 months after baseline. However, although anxiety predicted chest pain in the short term with a strong association, this association did not last after 18 months. Depression had only a small, negative association with chest pain. Conclusions In persons with CHD, chest pain increases the risk of both anxiety and depression to a great extent. However, anxiety and depression have only limited effects on the risk for chest pain. This evidence suggests that anxiety and depression tend to be consequences rather than causes of cardiac chest pain. Intervention studies that support persons with CHD by providing this information should be devised and evaluated, thus deconstructing potentially catastrophic cognitions and strengthening emotional coping

Frailty and depression predict instrumental activities of daily living in older adults: A population-based longitudinal study using the CARE75+ cohort

Objectives To evaluate if depression contributes, independently and/or in interaction with frailty, to loss of independence in instrumental activities of daily living (ADL) in older adults with frailty. Methods Longitudinal cohort study of people aged ≥75 years living in the community. We used multi-level linear regression model to quantify the relationship between depression (≥5 Geriatric Depression Scale) and frailty (electronic frailty index), and instrumental activities of daily living (Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale; range: 0–66; higher score implies greater independence). The model was adjusted for known confounders (age; gender; ethnicity; education; living situation; medical comorbidity). Results 553 participants were included at baseline; 53% were female with a mean age of 81 (5.0 SD) years. Depression and frailty (moderate and severe levels) were independently associated with reduced instrumental activities of daily living scores. In the adjusted analysis, the regression coefficient was -6.4 (95% CI: -8.3 to -4.5, p<0.05) for depression, -1.5 (95% CI: -3.8 to 0.9, p = 0.22) for mild frailty, -6.1 (95% CI: -8.6 to -3.6, p<0.05) for moderate frailty, and -10.1 (95% CI: -13.5 to -6.8, p<0.05) for severe frailty. Moreover, depression interacted with frailty to further reduce instrumental activities of daily living score in individuals with mild or moderate frailty. These relationships remained significant after adjusting for confounders. Conclusion Frailty and depression are independently associated with reduced independence in instrumental activities of daily living. Also, depression interacts with frailty to further reduce independence for mild to moderately frail individuals, suggesting that clinical management of frailty should integrate physical and mental health care

The Depression Initiative. Description of a collaborative care model for depression and of the factors influencing its implementation in the primary care setting in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: In the Depression Initiative, a promising collaborative care model for depression that was developed in the US was adapted for implementation in the Netherlands. AIM: Description of a collaborative care model for major depressive disorder (MDD) and of the factors influencing its implementation in the primary care setting in the Netherlands. DATA SOURCES: Data collected during the preparation phase of the CC:DIP trial of the Depression Initiative, literature, policy documents, information sheets from professional associations. RESULTS: Factors facilitating the implementation of the collaborative care model are continuous supervision of the care managers by the consultant psychiatrist and the trainers, a supportive web-based tracking system and the new reimbursement system that allows for introduction of a mental health care-practice nurse (MHC-PN) in the general practices and coverage of the treatment costs. Impeding factors might be the relatively high percentage of solo-primary care practices, the small percentage of professionals that are located in the same building, unfamiliarity with the concept of collaboration as required for collaborative care, the reimbursement system that demands regular negotiations between each health care provider and the insurance companies and the reluctance general practitioners might feel to expand their responsibility for their depressed patients. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the collaborative care model in the Netherlands requires extensive training and supervision on micro level, facilitation of reimbursement on meso- and macro level and structural effort to change the treatment culture for chronic mental disorders in the primary care settin

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Transdiagnostic Decision Tool:matched care for patients with a mental disorder in need of highly specialised care

BackgroundEarly identification of patients with mental health problems in need of highly specialised care could enhance the timely provision of appropriate care and improve the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies. Recent research on the development and psychometric evaluation of diagnosis-specific decision-support algorithms suggested that the treatment allocation of patients to highly specialised mental healthcare settings may be guided by a core set of transdiagnostic patient factors.AimsTo develop and psychometrically evaluate a transdiagnostic decision tool to facilitate the uniform assessment of highly specialised mental healthcare need in heterogeneous patient groups. Method The Transdiagnostic Decision Tool was developed based on an analysis of transdiagnostic items of earlier developed diagnosis-specific decision tools. The Transdiagnostic Decision Tool was psychometrically evaluated in 505 patients with a somatic symptom disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder. Feasibility, interrater reliability, convergent validity and criterion validity were assessed. In order to evaluate convergent validity, the five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) were administered.ResultsThe six-item clinician-administered Transdiagnostic Decision Tool demonstrated excellent feasibility and acceptable interrater reliability. Spearman's rank correlations between the Transdiagnostic Decision Tool and ICECAP-A (-0.335), EQ-5D-5L index (-0.386) and EQ-5D-visual analogue scale (-0.348) supported convergent validity. The area under the curve was 0.81 and a cut-off value of &gt;= 3 was found to represent the optimal cut-off value.ConclusionsThe Transdiagnostic Decision Tool demonstrated solid psychometric properties and showed promise as a measure for the early detection of patients in need of highly specialised mental healthcare.</p

Return-to-work intervention versus usual care for sick-listed employees

To evaluate the health-economic costs and benefits of a guided eHealth intervention (E-health module embedded in Collaborative Occupational healthcare (ECO)) encouraging sick-listed employees to a faster return to work.A two-armed cluster randomised trial with occupational physicians (OPs) (n=62), clustered and randomised by region into an experimental and a control group, to conduct a health-economic investment appraisal. Online self-reported data were collected from employees at baseline, after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.Occupational health care in the Netherlands.Employees from small-sized and medium-sized companies (≥18 years), sick-listed between 4 and 26 weeks with (symptoms of) common mental disorders visiting their OP.In the intervention group, employees (N=131) received an eHealth module aimed at changing cognitions regarding return to work, while OPs were supported by a decision aid for treatment and referral options. Employees in the control condition (N=89) received usual sickness guidance.Net benefits and return on investment based on absenteeism, presenteeism, health care use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.From the employer's perspective, the incremental net benefits were €3187 per employee over a single year, representing a return of investment of €11 per invested Euro, with a break-even point at 6 months. The economic case was also favourable from the employee's perspective, partly because of QALY health gains. The intervention was costing €234 per employee from a health service financier's perspective. The incremental net benefits from a social perspective were €4210. This amount dropped to €3559 in the sensitivity analysis trimming the 5% highest costs.The data suggest that the ECO intervention offers good value for money for virtually all stakeholders involved, because initial investments were more than recouped within a single year. The sometimes wide 95% CIs suggest that the costs and benefits are not always very precise estimates and real benefits could vary considerably

UP's: A cohort study on recovery in psychotic disorder patients : Design protocol

Recovery is a multidimensional concept, including symptomatic, functional, social, as well as personal recovery. The present study aims at exploring psychosocial and biological determinants of personal recovery, and disentangling time-dependent relationships between personal recovery and the other domains of recovery in a sample of people with a psychotic disorder. A cohort study is conducted with a 10-year follow-up. Personal recovery is assessed using the Recovering Quality of Life Questionnaire (ReQoL) and the Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter (I.ROC). Other domains of recovery are assessed by the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale Remission (PANSS-R), the BRIEF-A and the Social Role Participation Questionnaire—Short version (SRPQ) to assess symptomatic, functional and societal recovery, respectively. In addition, multiple biological, psychological, and social determinants are assessed. This study aims to assess the course of personal recovery, and to find determinants and time-dependent relationships with symptomatic, functional and societal recovery in people with a psychotic disorder. Strengths of the study are the large number of participants, long duration of follow-up, multiple assessments over time, extending beyond the treatment trajectory, and the use of a broad range of biological, psychological, and social determinants

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care including PST and an antidepressant treatment algorithm for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care; a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorder is currently one of the most burdensome disorders worldwide. Evidence-based treatments for depressive disorder are already available, but these are used insufficiently, and with less positive results than possible. Earlier research in the USA has shown good results in the treatment of depressive disorder based on a collaborative care approach with Problem Solving Treatment and an antidepressant treatment algorithm, and research in the UK has also shown good results with Problem Solving Treatment. These treatment strategies may also work very well in the Netherlands too, even though health care systems differ between countries. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a two-armed randomised clinical trial, with randomization on patient-level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands by means of an adapted collaborative care framework, including contracting and adherence-improving strategies, combined with Problem Solving Treatment and antidepressant medication according to a treatment algorithm. Forty general practices will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Included will be patients who are diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on DSM-IV criteria, and stratified according to comorbid chronic physical illness. Patients in the intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach, and patients in the control group will receive care as usual. Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) are assessed using questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, according to the PHQ9. Secondary outcome measures are remission as measured with the PHQ9 and the IDS-SR, and cost-effectiveness measured with the TiC-P, the EQ-5D and the SF-36. DISCUSSION: In this study, an American model to enhance care for patients with a depressive disorder, the collaborative care model, will be evaluated for effectiveness in the primary care setting. If effective across the Atlantic and across different health care systems, it is also likely to be an effective strategy to implement in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the Netherlands

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of transmural collaborative care with consultation letter (TCCCL) and duloxetine for major depressive disorder (MDD) and (sub)chronic pain in collaboration with primary care: design of a randomized placebo-controlled multi-Centre trial: TCC:PAINDIP

__Abstract__ Background: The comorbidity of pain and depression is associated with high disease burden for patients in terms of disability, wellbeing, and use of medical care. Patients with major and minor depression often present themselves with pain to a general practitioner and recognition of depression in such cases is low, but evolving. Also, physical symptoms, including pain, in major depressive disorder, predict a poorer response to treatment. A multi-faceted, patient-tailored treatment programme, like collaborative care, is promising. However, treatment of chronic pain conditions in depressive patients has, so far, received limited attention in research. Cost effectiveness of an integrated approach of pain in depressed patients has not been studied. This article describes the aims and design of a study to evaluate effects and costs of collaborative care with the antidepressant duloxetine for patients with pain symptoms and a depressive disorder, compared to collaborative care with placebo and compared to duloxetine alone