A Validation Study of the Web Screening Questionnaire (WSQ) Compared With the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Plus (MINI-Plus)

Background: There is a need for brief screening methods for psychiatric disorders in clinical practice. This study assesses the validity and accuracy of a brief self-report screening questionnaire, the Web Screening Questionnaire (WSQ), in detecting psychiatric disorders in a study group comprising the general population and psychiatric outpatients aged 18 years and older. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether the WSQ is an adequate test to screen for the presence of depressive and anxiety disorders in clinical practice. Methods: Participants were 1292 adults (1117 subjects from the general population and 175 psychiatric outpatients), aged 18 to 65 years. The discriminant characteristics of the WSQ were examined in relation to the (“gold standard”) Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Plus (MINI-Plus) disorders, by means of sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and positive and negative predictive values (PPVs, NPVs). Results: The specificity of the WSQ to individually detect depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and alcohol abuse or dependence ranged from 0.89 to 0.97 for most disorders, with the exception of post-traumatic stress disorder (0.52) and specific phobia (0.73). The sensitivity values ranged from 0.67 to 1.00, with the exception of depressive disorder (0.56) and alcohol abuse or dependence (0.56). Given the low prevalence of separate disorders in the general population sample, NPVs were extremely high across disorders (≥0.97), whereas PPVs were of poor strength (range 0.02-0.33). Conclusions: In this study group, the WSQ was a relatively good screening tool to identify individuals without a depressive or anxiety disorder, as it accurately identified those unlikely to suffer from these disorders (except for post-traumatic stress disorders and specific phobias). However, in case of a positive WSQ screening result, further diagnostic procedures are required

A randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a brief intensified cognitive behavioral therapy and/or pharmacotherapy for mood and anxiety disorders: Design and methods

Background: Anxiety and mood disorders involve a high disease burden and are associated with high economic costs. A stepped-care approach intervention and abbreviated diagnostic method are assumed to increase effectiveness and efficiency of the mental healthcare and are expected to reduce economic costs. Methods: Presented are the rationale, design, and methods of a two-armed randomized controlled trial comparing \u27treatment as usual\u27 (TAU) with a brief intensified cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and/or pharmacotherapy. Eligible participants (N =500) of five Dutch outpatient Mental Healthcare Centers are randomly assigned to either TAU or to the experimental condition (brief CBT and/or pharmacotherapy). Data on patients\u27 progress and clinical effectiveness of treatment are assessed at baseline, post-treatment (3. months after baseline), and at 6 and 12. months post-treatment by Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM). Cost analysis is performed on the obtained data. Discussion: Since few studies have investigated both the clinical and cost effectiveness of a stepped-care approach intervention and a shortened diagnostic ROM method in both anxiety and/or mood disorders within secondary mental health care, the results of this study might contribute to the improvement of (cost)-effective treatment options and diagnostic methods for these disorders

The clinical effectiveness of concise cognitive behavioral therapy with or without pharmacotherapy for depressive and anxiety disorders; a pragmatic randomized controlled equivalence trial in clinical practice

Background: Depressive and anxiety disorders contribute to a high disease burden. This paper investigates whether concise formats of cognitive behavioral- and/or pharmacotherapy are equivalent with longer standard care in the treatment of depressive and/or anxiety disorders in secondary mental health care. Methods: A pragmatic randomized controlled equivalence trial was conducted at five Dutch outpatient Mental Healthcare Centers (MHCs) of the Regional Mental Health Provider (RMHP) \u27Rivierduinen\u27. Patients (aged 18-65 years) with a mild to moderate anxiety and/or depressive disorder, were randomly allocated to concise or standard care. Data were collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months by Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM). Primary outcomes were the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) and the Web Screening Questionnaire (WSQ). We used Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) to assess outcomes. Results: Between March 2010 and December 2012, 182 patients, were enrolled (n = 89 standard care; n = 93 concise care). Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses demonstrated equivalence of concise care and standard care at all time points. Severity of illness reduced, and both treatments improved patient\u27s general health status and subdomains of quality of life. Moreover, in concise care, the beneficial effects started earlier. Discussion: Concise care has the potential to be a feasible and promising alternative to longer standard secondary mental health care in the treatment of outpatients with a mild to moderate depressive and/or anxiety disorder. For future research, we recommend adhering more strictly to the concise treatment protocols to further explore the beneficial effects of the concise treatment

Basal and LPS-stimulated inflammatory markers and the course of individual symptoms of depression

Multiple studies show an association between inflammatory markers and major depressive disorder (MDD). People with chronic low-grade inflammation may be at an increased risk of MDD, often in the form of sickness behaviors. We hypothesized that inflammation is predictive of the severity and the course of a subset of MDD symptoms, especially symptoms that overlap with sickness behavior, such as anhedonia, anorexia, low concentration, low energy, loss of libido, psychomotor slowness, irritability, and malaise. We tested the association between basal and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammatory markers with individual MDD symptoms (measured using the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report) over a period of up to 9 years using multivariate-adjusted mixed models in 1147–2872 Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) participants. At baseline, participants were on average 42.2 years old, 66.5% were women and 53.9% had a current mood or anxiety disorder. We found that basal and LPS-stimulated inflammatory markers were more strongly associated with sickness behavior symptoms at up to 9-year follow-up compared with non-sickness behavior symptoms of depression. However, we also found significant associations with some symptoms that are not typical of sickness behavior (e.g., sympathetic arousal among others). Inflammation was not related to depression as a unified syndrome but rather to the presence and the course of specific MDD symptoms, of which the majority were related to sickness behavior. Anti-inflammatory strategies should be tested in the subgroup of MDD patients who report depressive symptoms related to sickness behavior

Basal and LPS-stimulated inflammatory markers and the course of anxiety symptoms

A cross-sectional relationship between low-grade inflammation -characterized by increased blood levels of Creactive protein (CRP) and pro-inflammatory cytokines- and anxiety has been reported, but the potential longitudinal relationship has been less well studied. We aimed to examine whether basal and lipopolysaccharide (LPS-)induced levels of inflammatory markers are associated with anxiety symptom severity over the course of nine years. We tested the association between basal and LPS-induced inflammatory markers with anxiety symptoms (measured with the Beck's Anxiety Inventory; BAI, Fear Questionnaire; FQ and Penn's State Worry Questionnaire; PSWQ) at 5 assessment waves over a period up nine years. We used multivariate-adjusted mixed models in up to 2867 participants of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). At baseline, 43.6% of the participants had a current anxiety disorder, of which social phobia (18.5%) was most prevalent. Our results demonstrated that baseline inflammatory markers were significantly associated with several outcomes of anxiety at baseline over nine subsequent years. BAI subscale of somatic (arousal) symptoms of anxiety, and FQ subscale of agoraphobia demonstrated the strongest effects with standardized betacoefficients of up to 0.14. The associations were attenuated by 25%-30% after adjusting for the presence of (comorbid) major depressive disorder (MDD), but remained statistically significant. In conclusion, we found that participants with high levels of inflammatory markers have on average high levels of anxiety consisting of physical arousal and agoraphobia, which tended to persist over a period of nine years, albeit with small effect sizes. These associations were partly driven by co-morbid depression.Stress-related psychiatric disorders across the life spa

Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disorder-specific instruments for depression:An assessment in three longitudinal datasets

Background: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) may enhance individual treatment and is also advocated as a means to compare the outcome of different treatment programs or providers. There is debate on the optimal instruments to be used for these separate tasks.  Methods: Three sets with longitudinal data from ROM were analyzed with correlational analysis and repeated measures ANOVAs, allowing for a head-to-head comparison of measures regarding their sensitivity to detect change. The responsiveness of three disorder-specific instruments, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, and the Mood and Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire, was compared to three generic instruments, the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90), the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45), and the Brief Symptom Inventory, respectively.  Results: In two of the three datasets, disorder-specific measures were more responsive compared to the total score on generic instruments. Subscale scores for depression embedded within generic instruments are second best and almost match disorder-specific scales in responsiveness. No evidence of a desynchronous response on outcome measures was found.  Limitations: The present study compares measures head-to-had, and responsiveness is not assessed against an external criterion, such as clinical recovery.  Discussion: Disorder-specific measures yield the most precise assessment for individual treatment and are recommended for clinical use. Generic measures may allow for comparisons across diagnostic groups and their embedded subscales approach the responsiveness of disorder-specific measures

The 9-year clinical course of depressive and anxiety disorders:New NESDA findings

Background: In longitudinal research, switching between diagnoses should be considered when examining patients with depression and anxiety. We investigated course trajectories of affective disorders over a nine-year period, comparing a categorical approach using diagnoses to a dimensional approach using symptom severity. Method: Patients with a current depressive and/or anxiety disorder at baseline (N = 1701) were selected from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Using psychiatric diagnoses, we described 'consistently recovered,' 'intermittently recovered,' 'intermittently recurrent', and 'consistently chronic' at two-, four-, six-, and nine-year follow-up. Additionally, latent class growth analysis (LCGA) using depressive, anxiety, fear, and worry symptom severity scores was used to identify distinct classes. Results: Considering the categorical approach, 8.5% were chronic, 32.9% were intermittently recurrent, 37.6% were intermittently recovered, and 21.0% remained consistently recovered from any affective disorder at nine-year follow-up. In the dimensional approach, 66.6% were chronic, 25.9% showed partial recovery, and 7.6% had recovered. Limitations: 30.6% of patients were lost to follow-up. Diagnoses were rated by the interviewer and questionnaires were completed by the participant. Conclusions: Using diagnoses alone as discrete categories to describe clinical course fails to fully capture the persistence of affective symptoms that were observed when using a dimensional approach. The enduring, fluctuating presence of sub-threshold affective symptoms likely predisposes patients to frequent relapse. The commonness of subthreshold symptoms and their adverse impact on long-term prognoses deserve continuous clinical attention in mental health care as well further research

Empirische evidence voor de effectiviteit van routine outcome monitoring; een literatuuronderzoek

achtergrond Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) is een belangrijk kwaliteitsinstrument om effecten van behandeling zichtbaar te maken en wordt landelijk geïmplementeerd in de Nederlandse ggz. doel Evalueren van de wetenschappelijke stand van zaken betreffende de effectiviteit van ROM voor diagnostiek, behandeling en andere uitkomsten. methode Literatuuronderzoek in PubMed, Medline, Psycinfo en Embase Psychiatry (1975-2009) naar gerandomiseerde gecontroleerde trials (rct\u27s) van ROM bij alle leeftijdsgroepen patiënten (algemeen en ggz). De voornaamste zoektermen waren \u27routine outcome monitoring\u27 c.q. \u27routine outcome measurement\u27. resultaten Er werden 52 rct\u27s geïncludeerd betreffende ROM bij volwassen patiënten. Hiervan waren 45 rct\u27s gericht op psychische klachten, zij het niet altijd in een psychiatrische setting of als primaire uitkomstmaat. Er bleken positieve effecten van ROM op de diagnostiek en behandeling, en op de communicatie tussen patiënt en behandelaar. Andere uitkomsten waren minder eenduidig. conclusie ROM blijkt vooral effectief voor het monitoren van behandelingen die onvoldoende aanslaan. Nader onderzoek is nodig naar de klinische effectiviteit en de kosteneffectiviteit van ROM in zowel de volwassenen- als de kinder- en jeugdpsychiatrie

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Economic evaluation of concise Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and/or pharmacotherapy for depressive and anxiety disorders

BACKGROUND: Depressive and anxiety disorders cause great suffering and disability and are associated with high health care costs. In a previous conducted pragmatic randomised controlled trial, we have shown that a concise format of cognitive behavioural- and/or pharmacotherapy is as effective as standard care in reducing depressive and anxiety symptoms and in improving subdomains of general health and quality of life in secondary care psychiatric outpatients. AIMS OF THE STUDY: In this economic evaluation, we examined whether a favourable cost-utility of concise care compared to standard care was attained. METHODS: The economic evaluation was performed alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Health-related quality of life was measured using the Short-Form (SF-36) questionnaire. Cost of healthcare utilization and productivity loss (absenteeism and presenteeism) were assessed using the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for Costs associated with Psychiatric Illness (TiC-P). A cost-utility analysis, using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, comparing differences in societal costs and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) at 1 year was performed. RESULTS: One year after study entry, the difference in mean cost per patient of the two primary treatments was not significant between both groups. No significant differences in other healthcare and non- healthcare costs could be detected between patients receiving concise care and standard care. Also, QALYs were not statistically different between the groups during the study period. From both the societal and healthcare perspective, the probability that concise care is more cost-effective compared to standard care remains below the turning point of 0.5 for all acceptable values of the willingness to pay for a QALY. The economic evaluation suggests that concise care is unlikely to be cost-effective compared to standard care in the treatment for depressive- and anxiety disorders in secondary mental health care during a one year follow up period. DISCUSSION: Total costs and QALYs were not significantly different between standard and concise care, with no evidence for cost-effectiveness of concise care in the first year. The longer impact of concise care for patients with mild to moderate symptoms of depressive and/or anxiety disorders compared to standard care in secondary care needs to be further studied. IMPLICATIONS: This economic evaluation failed to find significant differences in cost between concise and standard care over the study period of one year. Replication of our economic evaluation might benefit from an extended follow-up period and strict adherence to the study protocol. If concise care will be found to be cost-effective in the long term, this would have major implications for recommendations how to optimize secondary mental health care in the treatment of depressive - and anxiety disorders