Evaluation of major depression in a routine clinical assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Major depression is a disorder that significantly worsens a patient's morbidity and mortality. The association of depression and diabetes is well documented and has clinical impact in diabetes treatment's outcome. Patients usually aren't evaluated initially by a psychiatrist, so it is important that non-psychiatrists learn to evaluate major depression and its impact.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Major depression can and should be evaluated on a routine clinical assessment. Depression's impact on the patients' quality of life, productivity and social interactions is well documented. The initial diagnosis of depression should lead to its prompt treatment, and it has to be emphasized that the incorrect treatment can lead to worsening of the condition, relapses, recurrences or even chronification of major depression.</p

Evidence For Genetic Heterogeneity Between Clinical Subtypes of Bipolar Disorder

We performed a genome-wide association study of 6447 bipolar disorder (BD) cases and 12 639 controls from the International Cohort Collection for Bipolar Disorder (ICCBD). Meta-analysis was performed with prior results from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Bipolar Group for a combined sample of 13 902 cases and 19 279 controls. We identified eight genome-wide significant, associated regions, including a novel associated region on chromosome 10 (rs10884920; P = 3.28 × 10 − 8) that includes the brain-enriched cytoskeleton protein adducin 3 (ADD3), a non-coding RNA, and a neuropeptide-specific aminopeptidase P (XPNPEP1). Our large sample size allowed us to test the heritability and genetic correlation of BD subtypes and investigate their genetic overlap with schizophrenia (SCZ) and major depressive disorder. We found a significant difference in heritability of the two most common forms of BD (BD I h2 = 0.35; BD II h2 = 0.25; P = 0.02) with a genetic correlation between BD I and BD II of 0.78,compared with a genetic correlation of 0.97 when BD cohorts containing both types were compared. In addition, we demonstrated a significantly greater load of polygenic risk alleles for SCZ and BD in patients with BD I compared with patients with BD II, and a greater load of SCZ risk alleles in the bipolar type of schizoaffective disorder (SAB) compared with both other BD subtypes. These results point to a partial difference in genetic architecture of BD subtypes, and are suggestive of a molecular correlate for the clinical division of BD into subtypes

Duloxetine compared with fluoxetine and venlafaxine: use of meta-regression analysis for indirect comparisons

BACKGROUND: Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited. A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with venlafaxine, the other antidepressant in the same therapeutic class with a significant market share, has been undertaken. In the absence of relevant data to assess the place that duloxetine should occupy in the therapeutic arsenal, indirect comparisons are the most rigorous way to go. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of duloxetine, fluoxetine and venlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and performed indirect comparisons through meta-regressions. METHODS: The bibliography of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and the CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase databases were interrogated using advanced search strategies based on a combination of text and index terms. The search focused on randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials involving adult patients treated for acute phase Major Depressive Disorder. All outcomes were derived to take account for varying placebo responses throughout studies. Primary outcome was treatment efficacy as measured by Hedge's g effect size. Secondary outcomes were response and dropout rates as measured by log odds ratios. Meta-regressions were run to indirectly compare the drugs. Sensitivity analysis, assessing the influence of individual studies over the results, and the influence of patients' characteristics were run. RESULTS: 22 studies involving fluoxetine, 9 involving duloxetine and 8 involving venlafaxine were selected. Using indirect comparison methodology, estimated effect sizes for efficacy compared with duloxetine were 0.11 [-0.14;0.36] for fluoxetine and 0.22 [0.06;0.38] for venlafaxine. Response log odds ratios were -0.21 [-0.44;0.03], 0.70 [0.26;1.14]. Dropout log odds ratios were -0.02 [-0.33;0.29], 0.21 [-0.13;0.55]. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were consistent. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine was not statistically different in either tolerability or efficacy when compared with duloxetine. Venlafaxine was significantly superior to duloxetine in all analyses except dropout rate. In the absence of relevant data from head-to-head comparison trials, results suggest that venlafaxine is superior compared with duloxetine and that duloxetine does not differentiate from fluoxetine