Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification:An individual participant data meta-analysis

Objectives: Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Methods: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated. Results: 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was −21.1% to 19.5%. Conclusions: HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-144045 & PCG 155468). Ms. Neupane was supported by a G.R. Caverhill Fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. Drs. Levis and Wu were supported by Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQS) Postdoctoral Training Fellowships. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Dr. Patten was supported by a Senior Health Scholar award from Alberta Innovates, Health Solutions. The primary study by Scott et al. was supported by the Cumming School of Medicine and Alberta Health Services through the Calgary Health Trust, and funding from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Amoozegar et al. was supported by the Alberta Health Services, the University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Cheung et al. was supported by the Waikato Clinical School, University of Auckland, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation and the Waikato Respiratory Research Fund. The primary study by Cukor et al. was supported in part by a Promoting Psychological Research and Training on Health-Disparities Issues at Ethnic Minority Serving Institutions Grants (ProDIGs) awarded to Dr. Cukor from the American Psychological Association. The primary study by De Souza et al. was supported by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust. The primary study by Honarmand et al. was supported by a grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. The primary study by Fischer et al. was supported as part of the RECODEHF study by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01GY1150). The primary study by Gagnon et al. was supported by the Drummond Foundation and the Department of Psychiatry, University Health Network. The primary study by Akechi et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (11−2) from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The primary study by Kugaya et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (9–31) and the Second-Term Comprehensive 10-year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The primary study Ryan et al. was supported by the Irish Cancer Society (Grant CRP08GAL). The primary study by Keller et al. was supported by the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg (grant no. 175/2000). The primary study by Love et al. (2004) was supported by the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation (National Breast Cancer Foundation), the Cancer Council of Victoria and the National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Love et al. (2002) was supported by a grant from the Bethlehem Griffiths Research Foundation. The primary study by Löwe et al. was supported by the medical faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Germany (Project 121/2000). The primary study by Navines et al. was supported in part by the Spanish grants from the Fondo de Investigación en Salud, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (EO PI08/90869 and PSIGEN-VHC Study: FIS-E08/00268) and the support of FEDER (one way to make Europe). The primary study by O'Rourke et al. was supported by the Scottish Home and Health Department, Stroke Association, and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Sanchez-Gistau et al. was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health of Spain (PI040418) and in part by Catalonia Government, DURSI 2009SGR1119. The primary study by Gould et al. was supported by the Transport Accident Commission Grant. The primary study by Rooney et al. was supported by the NHS Lothian Neuro-Oncology Endowment Fund. The primary study by Schwarzbold et al. was supported by PRONEX Program (NENASC Project) and PPSUS Program of Fundaçao de Amparo a esquisa e Inovacao do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC) and the National Science and Technology Institute for Translational Medicine (INCT-TM). The primary study by Simard et al. was supported by IDEA grants from the Canadian Prostate Cancer Research Initiative and the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance, as well as a studentship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The primary study by Singer et al. (2009) was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (no. 01ZZ0106). The primary study by Singer et al. (2008) was supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (# 7DZAIQTX) and of the University of Leipzig (# formel. 1–57). The primary study by Meyer et al. was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The primary study by Stone et al. was supported by the Medical Research Council, UK and Chest Heart and Stroke, Scotland. The primary study by Turner et al. was supported by a bequest from Jennie Thomas through Hunter Medical Research Institute. The primary study by Walterfang et al. was supported by Melbourne Health. Drs. Benedetti and Thombs were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards. No other authors reported funding for primary studies or for their work on this study. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication

Dissecting the Shared Genetic Architecture of Suicide Attempt, Psychiatric Disorders, and Known Risk Factors

Background Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide, and nonfatal suicide attempts, which occur far more frequently, are a major source of disability and social and economic burden. Both have substantial genetic etiology, which is partially shared and partially distinct from that of related psychiatric disorders. Methods We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 29,782 suicide attempt (SA) cases and 519,961 controls in the International Suicide Genetics Consortium (ISGC). The GWAS of SA was conditioned on psychiatric disorders using GWAS summary statistics via multitrait-based conditional and joint analysis, to remove genetic effects on SA mediated by psychiatric disorders. We investigated the shared and divergent genetic architectures of SA, psychiatric disorders, and other known risk factors. Results Two loci reached genome-wide significance for SA: the major histocompatibility complex and an intergenic locus on chromosome 7, the latter of which remained associated with SA after conditioning on psychiatric disorders and replicated in an independent cohort from the Million Veteran Program. This locus has been implicated in risk-taking behavior, smoking, and insomnia. SA showed strong genetic correlation with psychiatric disorders, particularly major depression, and also with smoking, pain, risk-taking behavior, sleep disturbances, lower educational attainment, reproductive traits, lower socioeconomic status, and poorer general health. After conditioning on psychiatric disorders, the genetic correlations between SA and psychiatric disorders decreased, whereas those with nonpsychiatric traits remained largely unchanged. Conclusions Our results identify a risk locus that contributes more strongly to SA than other phenotypes and suggest a shared underlying biology between SA and known risk factors that is not mediated by psychiatric disorders.Peer reviewe

Clinical implementation of preemptive pharmacogenomics in psychiatry

Background:Pharmacogenomics (PGx) holds promise to revolutionize modern healthcare. Although there are several prospective clinical studies in oncology and cardiology, demonstrating a beneficial effect of PGx-guided treatment in reducing adverse drug reactions, there are very few such studies in psychiatry, none of which spans across all main psychiatric indications, namely schizophrenia, major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. In this study we aim to investigate the clinical effectiveness of PGx-guided treatment (occurrence of adverse drug reactions, hospitalisations and re-admissions, polypharmacy) and perform a cost analysis of the intervention. Methods: We report our findings from a multicenter, large-scale, prospective study of pre-emptive genome-guided treatment named as PREemptive Pharmacogenomic testing for preventing Adverse drug REactions (PREPARE) in a large cohort of psychiatric patients (n = 1076) suffering from schizophrenia, major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. Findings: We show that patients with an actionable phenotype belonging to the PGx-guided arm (n = 25) present with 34.1% less adverse drug reactions compared to patients belonging to the control arm (n = 36), 41.2% less hospitalisations (n = 110 in the PGx-guided arm versus n = 187 in the control arm) and 40.5% less re-admissions (n = 19 in the PGx-guided arm versus n = 32 in the control arm), less duration of initial hospitalisations (n = 3305 total days of hospitalisation in the PGx-guided arm from 110 patients, versus n = 6517 in the control arm from 187 patients) and duration of hospitalisation upon readmission (n = 579 total days of hospitalisation upon readmission in the PGx-guided arm, derived from 19 patients, versus n = 928 in the control arm, from 32 patients respectively). It was also shown that in the vast majority of the cases, there was less drug dose administrated per drug in the PGx-guided arm compared to the control arm and less polypharmacy (n = 124 patients prescribed with at least 4 psychiatric drugs in the PGx-guided arm versus n = 143 in the control arm) and smaller average number of co-administered psychiatric drugs (2.19 in the PGx-guided arm versus 2.48 in the control arm. Furthermore, less deaths were reported in the PGx-guided arm (n = 1) compared with the control arm (n = 9). Most importantly, we observed a 48.5% reduction of treatment costs in the PGx-guided arm with a reciprocal slight increase of the quality of life of patients suffering from major depressive disorder (0.935 versus 0.925 QALYs in the PGx-guided and control arm, respectively).Interpretation: While only a small proportion (∼25%) of the entire study sample had an actionable genotype, PGx-guided treatment can have a beneficial effect in psychiatric patients with a reciprocal reduction of treatment costs. Although some of these findings did not remain significant when all patients were considered, our data indicate that genome-guided psychiatric treatment may be successfully integrated in mainstream healthcare. </p

Pregabalin for Opioid-Refractory Pain in a Patient with Ankylosing Spondylitis

Background. Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a systemic inflammatory disease with chronic back pain as the most common presenting symptom. We present a case of a male patient with AS reporting symptoms of severe low back pain, buttock pain, and limited spinal mobility. After chronic treatment with opioids, we administered pregabalin at a dose of 300 mg as an analgesic agent while opioids were discontinued. Findings. Pain symptoms improved progressively, and opioids were gradually discontinued without any withdrawal symptoms reported. Conclusions. Pregabalin is potentially useful in the management of pain in patients with AS while effectively managing the discontinuation of opioid treatment

Low-dose clozapine monotherapy for recurring episodes of depression, hypersomnia and behavioural disturbances: a case report

Case Report: We present a 27-year-old woman who manifested recurrent episodes of hypersomnia, compulsive hyperphagia, hypersexuality, impulsive behaviours, irritability and depressive mood since the age of 13 after a viral febrile infection. She had 3-4 episodes/year lasting from a few days to 2-3 weeks which were managed with various psychotropics. During her last episode, she was admitted because of persistent behavioural disturbances. Brain 99m-Tc-ethyl cysteinate dimer single-photon emission computed tomography scans showed bilateral mesiotemporal and thalamic hypoperfusion, more significant in the right hemisphere. While hospitalised, she developed neuroleptic malignant syndrome following haloperidol administration. She was discharged on clozapine 100 mg/day. Over the following 30 months, she remained symptom free on clozapine 50-100 mg/day. Discussion: Differential diagnosis included either an atypical recurrent mood disorder with hypersomnia and behavioural disturbances or Kleine-Levin syndrome. Conclusion: Low-dose clozapine monotherapy may worth being further investigated for the management of recurring episodes of depression, hypersomnia and behavioural disturbances

Clinical implementation of preemptive pharmacogenomics in psychiatryResearch in context

Summary: Background: Pharmacogenomics (PGx) holds promise to revolutionize modern healthcare. Although there are several prospective clinical studies in oncology and cardiology, demonstrating a beneficial effect of PGx-guided treatment in reducing adverse drug reactions, there are very few such studies in psychiatry, none of which spans across all main psychiatric indications, namely schizophrenia, major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. In this study we aim to investigate the clinical effectiveness of PGx-guided treatment (occurrence of adverse drug reactions, hospitalisations and re-admissions, polypharmacy) and perform a cost analysis of the intervention. Methods: We report our findings from a multicenter, large-scale, prospective study of pre-emptive genome-guided treatment named as PREemptive Pharmacogenomic testing for preventing Adverse drug REactions (PREPARE) in a large cohort of psychiatric patients (n = 1076) suffering from schizophrenia, major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. Findings: We show that patients with an actionable phenotype belonging to the PGx-guided arm (n = 25) present with 34.1% less adverse drug reactions compared to patients belonging to the control arm (n = 36), 41.2% less hospitalisations (n = 110 in the PGx-guided arm versus n = 187 in the control arm) and 40.5% less re-admissions (n = 19 in the PGx-guided arm versus n = 32 in the control arm), less duration of initial hospitalisations (n = 3305 total days of hospitalisation in the PGx-guided arm from 110 patients, versus n = 6517 in the control arm from 187 patients) and duration of hospitalisation upon readmission (n = 579 total days of hospitalisation upon readmission in the PGx-guided arm, derived from 19 patients, versus n = 928 in the control arm, from 32 patients respectively). It was also shown that in the vast majority of the cases, there was less drug dose administrated per drug in the PGx-guided arm compared to the control arm and less polypharmacy (n = 124 patients prescribed with at least 4 psychiatric drugs in the PGx-guided arm versus n = 143 in the control arm) and smaller average number of co-administered psychiatric drugs (2.19 in the PGx-guided arm versus 2.48 in the control arm. Furthermore, less deaths were reported in the PGx-guided arm (n = 1) compared with the control arm (n = 9). Most importantly, we observed a 48.5% reduction of treatment costs in the PGx-guided arm with a reciprocal slight increase of the quality of life of patients suffering from major depressive disorder (0.935 versus 0.925 QALYs in the PGx-guided and control arm, respectively). Interpretation: While only a small proportion (∼25%) of the entire study sample had an actionable genotype, PGx-guided treatment can have a beneficial effect in psychiatric patients with a reciprocal reduction of treatment costs. Although some of these findings did not remain significant when all patients were considered, our data indicate that genome-guided psychiatric treatment may be successfully integrated in mainstream healthcare. Funding: European Union Horizon 2020

Probability of major depression diagnostic classification based on the SCID, CIDI and MINI diagnostic interviews controlling for Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression subscale scores: An individual participant data meta-analysis of 73 primary studies

Objective Two previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) found that different diagnostic interviews classify different proportions of people as having major depression overall or by symptom levels. We compared the odds of major depression classification across diagnostic interviews among studies that administered the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D). Methods Data accrued for an IPDMA on HADS-D diagnostic accuracy were analysed. We fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare odds of major depression classification for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), controlling for HADS-D scores and participant characteristics with and without an interaction term between interview and HADS-D scores. Results There were 15,856 participants (1942 [12%] with major depression) from 73 studies, including 15,335 (97%) non-psychiatric medical patients, 164 (1%) partners of medical patients, and 357 (2%) healthy adults. The MINI (27 studies, 7345 participants, 1066 major depression cases) classified participants as having major depression more often than the CIDI (10 studies, 3023 participants, 269 cases) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.70 (0.84, 3.43)) and the semi-structured SCID (36 studies, 5488 participants, 607 cases) (aOR = 1.52 (1.01, 2.30)). The odds ratio for major depression classification with the CIDI was less likely to increase as HADS-D scores increased than for the SCID (interaction aOR = 0.92 (0.88, 0.96)). Conclusion Compared to the SCID, the MINI may diagnose more participants as having major depression, and the CIDI may be less responsive to symptom severity

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated control measures on the mental health of the general population

Background: To what extent the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures influenced mental health in the general population is still unclear. Purpose: To assess the trajectory of mental health symptoms during the first year of the pandemic and examine dose-response relations with characteristics of the pandemic and its containment. Data sources: Relevant articles were identified from the living evidence database of the COVID-19 Open Access Project, which indexes COVID-19-related publications from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo. Preprint publications were not considered. Study selection: Longitudinal studies that reported data on the general population's mental health using validated scales and that were published before 31 March 2021 were eligible. Data extraction: An international crowd of 109 trained reviewers screened references and extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, and symptom scores at each timepoint. Data were also included for the following country-specific variables: days since the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the stringency of governmental containment measures, and the cumulative numbers of cases and deaths. Data synthesis: In a total of 43 studies (331 628 participants), changes in symptoms of psychological distress, sleep disturbances, and mental well-being varied substantially across studies. On average, depression and anxiety symptoms worsened in the first 2 months of the pandemic (standardized mean difference at 60 days, -0.39 [95% credible interval, -0.76 to -0.03]); thereafter, the trajectories were heterogeneous. There was a linear association of worsening depression and anxiety with increasing numbers of reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increasing stringency in governmental measures. Gender, age, country, deprivation, inequalities, risk of bias, and study design did not modify these associations. Limitations: The certainty of the evidence was low because of the high risk of bias in included studies and the large amount of heterogeneity. Stringency measures and surges in cases were strongly correlated and changed over time. The observed associations should not be interpreted as causal relationships. Conclusion: Although an initial increase in average symptoms of depression and anxiety and an association between higher numbers of reported cases and more stringent measures were found, changes in mental health symptoms varied substantially across studies after the first 2 months of the pandemic. This suggests that different populations responded differently to the psychological stress generated by the pandemic and its containment measures

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated control measures on the mental health of the general population: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

Background: to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures influenced mental health in the general population is still unclear.Purpose: to assess the trajectory of mental health symptoms during the first year of the pandemic and examine dose–response relations with characteristics of the pandemic and its containment.Data Sources: relevant articles were identified from the living evidence database of the COVID-19 Open Access Project, which indexes COVID-19–related publications from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo. Preprint publications were not considered.Study Selection: longitudinal studies that reported data on the general population's mental health using validated scales and that were published before 31 March 2021 were eligible.Data Extraction: an international crowd of 109 trained reviewers screened references and extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, and symptom scores at each timepoint. Data were also included for the following country-specific variables: days since the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the stringency of governmental containment measures, and the cumulative numbers of cases and deaths.Data Synthesis: in a total of 43 studies (331 628 participants), changes in symptoms of psychological distress, sleep disturbances, and mental well-being varied substantially across studies. On average, depression and anxiety symptoms worsened in the first 2 months of the pandemic (standardized mean difference at 60 days, −0.39 [95% credible interval, −0.76 to −0.03]); thereafter, the trajectories were heterogeneous. There was a linear association of worsening depression and anxiety with increasing numbers of reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increasing stringency in governmental measures. Gender, age, country, deprivation, inequalities, risk of bias, and study design did not modify these associations.Limitations: the certainty of the evidence was low because of the high risk of bias in included studies and the large amount of heterogeneity. Stringency measures and surges in cases were strongly correlated and changed over time. The observed associations should not be interpreted as causal relationships.Conclusion: although an initial increase in average symptoms of depression and anxiety and an association between higher numbers of reported cases and more stringent measures were found, changes in mental health symptoms varied substantially across studies after the first 2 months of the pandemic. This suggests that different populations responded differently to the psychological stress generated by the pandemic and its containment measures.Primary Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation. (PROSPERO: CRD42020180049