Rationale, component description and pilot evaluation of a physical health promotion measure for people with mental disorders across Europe

Introduction: The HELPS project aimed at developing a toolkit for the promotion of physical health in people with mental disorders to reduce the substantial excess morbidity and mortality in the target group. Methods: The HELPS toolkit was developed by means of national and international literature reviews, Delphi rounds with mental health experts and focus groups with mental health experts and patients/ residents in 14 European countries. The toolkit was translated into the languages of all participating countries, and usability of toolkit modules was tested. Results: The toolkit consists of several modules addressing diverse somatic health problems, lifestyle, environment issues, patient goals and motivation for health-promotion measures. It aims at empowering people with mental illness and staff to identify physical health risks in their specific contexts and to select the most appropriate modules from a range of health promotion tools. Discussion: The HELPS project used an integrative approach to the development of simple tools for the target population and is available online in 14 European languages. Preliminary evidence suggests that the toolkit can be used in routine care settings and should be put to test in controlled trials to reveal its potential impact

Self-report and clinician-rated measures of depression severity: can one replace the other?

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that clinician-rated scales and self-report questionnaires may be interchangeable in the measurement of depression severity, but it has not been tested whether clinically significant information is lost when assessment is restricted to either clinician-rated or self-report instruments. The aim of this study is to test whether self-report provides information relevant to short-term treatment outcomes that is not captured by clinician-rating and vice versa. METHODS: In genome-based drugs for depression (GENDEP), 811 patients with major depressive disorder treated with escitalopram or nortriptyline were assessed with the clinician-rated Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), and the self-report Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). In sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D), 4,041 patients treated with citalopram were assessed with the clinician-rated and self-report versions of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-C and QIDS-SR) in addition to HRSD. RESULTS: In GENDEP, baseline BDI significantly predicted outcome on MADRS/HRSD after adjusting for baseline MADRS/HRSD, explaining additional 3 to 4% of variation in the clinician-rated outcomes (both P < .001). Likewise, each clinician-rated scale significantly predicted outcome on BDI after adjusting for baseline BDI and explained additional 1% of variance in the self-reported outcome (both P < .001). The results were confirmed in STAR*D, where self-report and clinician-rated versions of the same instrument each uniquely contributed to the prediction of treatment outcome. CONCLUSION: Complete assessment of depression should include both clinician-rated scales and self-reported measures

Combining clinical variables to optimize prediction of antidepressant treatment outcomes

The outcome of treatment with antidepressants varies markedly across people with the same diagnosis. A clinically significant prediction of outcomes could spare the frustration of trial and error approach and improve the outcomes of major depressive disorder through individualized treatment selection. It is likely that a combination of multiple predictors is needed to achieve such prediction. We used elastic net regularized regression to optimize prediction of symptom improvement and remission during treatment with escitalopram or nortriptyline and to identify contributing predictors from a range of demographic and clinical variables in 793 adults with major depressive disorder. A combination of demographic and clinical variables, with strong contributions from symptoms of depressed mood, reduced interest, decreased activity, indecisiveness, pessimism and anxiety significantly predicted treatment outcomes, explaining 5-10% of variance in symptom improvement with escitalopram. Similar combinations of variables predicted remission with area under the curve 0.72, explaining approximately 15% of variance (pseudo R2) in who achieves remission, with strong contributions from body mass index, appetite, interest-activity symptom dimension and anxious-somatizing depression subtype. Escitalopram-specific outcome prediction was more accurate than generic outcome prediction, and reached effect sizes that were near or above a previously established benchmark for clinical significance. Outcome prediction on the nortriptyline arm did not significantly differ from chance. These results suggest that easily obtained demographic and clinical variables can predict therapeutic response to escitalopram with clinically meaningful accuracy, suggesting a potential for individualized prescription of this antidepressant drug.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

An inflammatory biomarker as a differential predictor of outcome of depression treatment with escitalopram and nortriptyline

Objective: Major depressive disorder has been linked with inflammatory processes, but it is unclear whether individual differences in levels of inflammatory biomarkers could help match patients to treatments that are most likely to be beneficial. The authors tested the hypothesis that C-reactive protein (CRP), a commonly available marker of systemic inflammation, predicts differential response to escitalopram (a serotonin reuptake inhibitor) and nortriptyline (a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor).SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Melancholic, atypical and anxious depression subtypes and outcome of treatment with escitalopram and nortriptyline

Objective: To investigate whether subtypes of depression predict differential outcomes of treatment with selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and a tricyclic antidepressant in major depression. Method: Among 811 adults with moderate-to-severe depression, melancholic, atypical, anxious and anxious-somatizing depression subtypes established at baseline were evaluated as predictors of outcome of treatment with flexible dosage of the SSRI escitalopram or the tricyclic antidepressant nortriptyline. The primary outcome measure was the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Secondary outcome measures were the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Results: Melancholic depression was associated with slightly worse outcomes among individuals treated with escitalopram, but did not affect outcome of treatment with nortriptyline. The interaction between melancholic depression and drug did not reach statistical significance for the primary outcome measure and significant results for secondary outcome measures were not robust in sensitivity analyses. Atypical depression was unrelated to outcome of treatment with either antidepressant. Anxious and anxious-somatizing depression did not predict outcome on the primary measure, but inconsistently predicted worse outcome in some secondary analyses. Limitations: Some participants were non-randomly allocated to drug. Therefore, drug-by-predictor interactions had to be validated in sensitivity analyses restricted to the 468 randomly allocated individuals. Conclusions: Melancholic, atypical or anxious depression, are not sufficiently robust differential predictors of outcome to help clinician choose between SSRI and tricyclic antidepressants. There is a need to investigate other predictors of outcome. © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Association between C-reactive protein (CRP) with depression symptom severity and specific depressive symptoms in major depression

Introduction Population-based studies have associated inflammation, particularly higher C-reactive protein (CRP), with depressive severity, but clinical trials in major depressive disorder were rather non-specific without examining the role of gender. We aimed to investigate the association between CRP and overall depression severity including specific depressive symptoms and to examine potential gender differences. Methods We included 231 individuals with major depressive disorder from the Genome-Based Therapeutics Drugs for Depression (GENDEP) study. At baseline, we assessed high-sensitivity CRP levels and psychopathology with the Montgomery Aasberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). We performed linear regression analyses to investigate the association between baseline CRP levels with overall MADRS severity and specific symptoms at baseline and adjusted for age, gender, anti-inflammatory and psychotropic drug treatment, body mass index, smoking, inflammatory diseases, and recruitment center. Results Higher CRP levels were significantly associated with greater overall MADRS symptom severity (p = 0.02), which was significant among women (p = 0.02) but not among men (p = 0.68). Among women, higher CRP was associated with increased severity on observed mood, cognitive symptoms, interest-activity, and suicidality, but we found no significant associations among men. Interaction analyses showed no significant gender differences on the overall MADRS score or specific symptoms. Discussion Our results support the sickness syndrome theory suggesting that chronic low-grade inflammation may be associated with a subtype of depression. The potential gender differences in psychopathology may be explained by biological and/or psychosocial factors, e.g. differential modulation of immune responses by sex hormones. Clinical studies should investigate symptom-specific and/or gender-specific treatment guided by peripheral inflammatory markers

Trajectories of suicidal ideation during 12 weeks of escitalopram or nortriptyline antidepressant treatment among 811 patients with major depressive disorder

Suicidal ideation is a frequent and difficult-to-treat clinical challenge among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, little is known regarding the differential development during antidepressant treatment and whether some patients may suffer from persistent suicidal ideation