58 research outputs found

    Monitoring of somatic parameters at outpatient departments for mood and anxiety disorders

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION: Somatic complications account for the majority of the 13-30 years shortened life expectancy in psychiatric patients compared to the general population. The study aim was to assess to which extent patients visiting outpatient departments for mood and anxiety disorders were monitored for relevant somatic comorbidities and (adverse) effects of psychotropic drugs-more specifically a) metabolic parameters, b) lithium safety and c) ECGs-during their treatment. METHODS: We performed a retrospective clinical records review and cross-sectional analysis to assess the extent of somatic monitoring at four outpatient departments for mood and anxiety disorders in The Netherlands. We consecutively recruited adult patients visiting a participating outpatient department between March and November 2014. The primary outcome was percentage of patients without monitoring measurements. Secondary outcomes were number of measurements per parameter per patient per year and time from start of treatment to first measurement. RESULTS: We included 324 outpatients, of whom 60.2% were female. Most patients were treated for depressive disorders (39.8%), anxiety disorders (16.7%) or bipolar or related disorders (11.7%) and 198 patients (61.1%) used at least one psychotropic drug. For 186 patients (57.4%), no monitoring records were recorded (median treatment period 7.3 months, range 0-55.6). The median number of measurements per parameter per year since the start of outpatient treatment for patients with monitoring measurements was 0.31 (range 0.0-12.9). The median time to first monitoring measurement per parameter for patients with monitoring measurements was 3.8 months (range 0.0-50.7). DISCUSSION: Somatic monitoring in outpatients with mood and anxiety disorders is not routine clinical practice. Monitoring practices need to be improved to prevent psychiatric outpatients from undetected somatic complications

    Design of a health-economic Markov model to assess cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the prevention and treatment of depressive disorder

    Get PDF
    Contains fulltext : 225612.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)Background/objective: To describe the design of 'DepMod', a health-economic Markov model for assessing cost-effectiveness and budget impact of user-defined preventive interventions and treatments in depressive disorders. Methods: DepMod has an epidemiological layer describing how a cohort of people can transition between health states (sub-threshold depression, first episode of mild, moderate or severe depression, (partial) remission, recurrence, death). Superimposed on the epidemiological layer, DepMod has an intervention layer consisting of a reference scenario and alternative scenario comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a user-defined package of preventive interventions and psychological and pharmacological treatments of depression. Results are presented in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and healthcare expenditure. Costs and effects can be modelled over five years and are subjected to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: DepMod was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of scaling up preventive interventions for treating people with subclinical depression, which showed that there is an 82% probability that scaling up prevention is cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY. Conclusion: DepMod is a Markov model that assesses the cost-utility and budget impact of different healthcare packages aimed at preventing and treating depression and is freely available for academic purposes upon request at the authors.12 p

    Emotional Biases and Recurrence in Major Depressive Disorder. Results of 2.5 Years Follow-Up of Drug-Free Cohort Vulnerable for Recurrence

    Get PDF
    An interesting factor explaining recurrence risk in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) may be neuropsychological functioning, i.e., processing of emotional stimuli/information. Negatively biased processing of emotional stimuli/information has been found in both acute and (inconclusively) remitted states of MDD, and may be causally related to recurrence of depression. We aimed to investigate self-referent, memory and interpretation biases in recurrently depressed patients in remission and relate these biases to recurrence. We included 69 remitted recurrent MDD-patients (rrMDD-patients), 35–65 years, with ≥2 episodes, voluntarily free of antidepressant maintenance therapy for at least 4 weeks. We tested self-referent biases with an emotional categorization task, bias in emotional memory by free recall of the emotion categorization task 15 min after completing it, and interpretation bias with a facial expression recognition task. We compared these participants with 43 never-depressed controls matched for age, sex and intelligence. We followed the rrMDD-patients for 2.5 years and assessed recurrent depressive episodes by structured interview. The rrMDD-patients showed biases toward emotionally negative stimuli, faster responses to negative self-relevant characteristics in the emotional categorization, better recognition of sad faces, worse recognition of neutral faces with more misclassifications as angry or disgusting faces and less misclassifications as neutral faces (0.001 < p < 0.05). Of these, the number of misclassifications as angry and the overall performance in the emotional memory task were significantly associated with the time to recurrence (p ≤ 0.04), independent of residual symptoms and number of previous episodes. In a support vector machine data-driven model, prediction of recurrence-status could best be achieved (relative to observed recurrence-rate) with demographic and childhood adversity parameters (accuracy 78.1%; 1-sided p = 0.002); neuropsychological tests could not improve this prediction. Our data suggests a persisting (mood-incongruent) emotional bias when patients with recurrent depression are in remission. Moreover, these persisting biases might be mechanistically important for recurrence and prevention thereof

    Digital phenotyping and the COVID-19 pandemic:Capturing behavioral change in patients with psychiatric disorders

    Get PDF
    Contains fulltext : 227418.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented societal changes limiting us in our mobility and our ability to connect with others in person. These unusual but widespread changes provide a unique opportunity for studies using digital phenotyping tools. Digital phenotyping tools, such as mobile passive monitoring platforms (MPM), provide a new perspective on human behavior and hold promise to improve human behavioral research. However, there is currently little evidence that these tools can reliably detect changes in behavior. Considering the Considering the COVID-19 pandemic as a high impact common environmental factor we studied potential impact on behavior of participants using our mobile passive monitoring platform BEHAPP that was ambulatory tracking them during the COVID-19 pandemic. We pooled data from three MPM studies involving Schizophrenia (SZ), Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Bipolar Disorder (BD) patients (N = 12). We compared the data collected on weekdays during three weeks prior and three weeks subsequent to the start of the quarantine. We hypothesized an increase in communication and a decrease in mobility. We observed a significant increase in the total time spent on communication applications (median 179 and 243 min per week respectively, p = 0.005), and a significant decrease in the number of unique places visited (median 6 and 3 visits per week respectively, p = 0.007), while the total time spent at home did not change significantly (median 64 and 77 h per week, respectively, p = 0.594). The data provides a proof of principle that digital phenotyping tools can identify changes in human behavior incited by a common external environmental factor.6 p

    Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder:a systematic review and network meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available, however, because of lack of resources, antidepressants are used more frequently. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Consequently, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for major depressive disorder in adults. Methods We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, LiLACS, MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, regulatory agencies' websites, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind randomised controlled trials up to January 8th 2016, for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants in adults. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (discontinuations due to any cause). Secondary outcomes included symptom severity, remission rate and discontinuations due to adverse events. We estimated summary odds ratios (OR) and standardised mean differences (with 95% credibility intervals - 95% CrIs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42012002291). Findings We included 522 trials with 116,477 participants. The certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with OR ranging between 2·13 (95% CrI 1·89 to 2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·38 (95% CrI 1·16 to 1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, agomelatine and fluoxetine were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72 to 0·97 and 0·88, 95% CrI 0·80 to 0·96, respectively), while clomipramine was worse than placebo (OR 1.31, 95% CrI 1·01 to 1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in OR between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 (95% CrI 1·04 to 1·27) to 1·55 (95% CrI 1·27 to 1·91) for efficacy and from 0.64 (95% CrI 0·48 to 0·86) to 0.85 (95% CrI 0·75 to 0·96) for acceptability, with wide confidence intervals on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (OR range: 1.12 [95% CrI 1·00 to 1·32] to 1.96 [95% CrI 1·09 to 3·57]), while fluoxetine, reboxetine and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (OR range: 0.51 [95% CrI 0·72 to 0·97] to 0.89 [95% CrI 0·72 to 0·97]). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline and vortioxetine were the best drugs (OR range: 0.42 [95% CrI 0·72 to 0·97] to 0.81 [95% CrI 0·72 to 0·97]), while amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (OR range: 1.23 [95% CrI 1·00 to 1·32] to 2.37 [95% CrI 1·00 to 1·32]). Interpretation All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, while there was more variability in efficacy and rate of drop out in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers and policy-makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants.</p

    What we learn about bipolar disorder from large-scale neuroimaging:Findings and future directions from the ENIGMA Bipolar Disorder Working Group

    Get PDF
    MRI-derived brain measures offer a link between genes, the environment and behavior and have been widely studied in bipolar disorder (BD). However, many neuroimaging studies of BD have been underpowered, leading to varied results and uncertainty regarding effects. The Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Bipolar Disorder Working Group was formed in 2012 to empower discoveries, generate consensus findings and inform future hypothesis-driven studies of BD. Through this effort, over 150 researchers from 20 countries and 55 institutions pool data and resources to produce the largest neuroimaging studies of BD ever conducted. The ENIGMA Bipolar Disorder Working Group applies standardized processing and analysis techniques to empower large-scale meta- and mega-analyses of multimodal brain MRI and improve the replicability of studies relating brain variation to clinical and genetic data. Initial BD Working Group studies reveal widespread patterns of lower cortical thickness, subcortical volume and disrupted white matter integrity associated with BD. Findings also include mapping brain alterations of common medications like lithium, symptom patterns and clinical risk profiles and have provided further insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms of BD. Here we discuss key findings from the BD working group, its ongoing projects and future directions for large-scale, collaborative studies of mental illness

    Clinical Perspectives on Using Remote Measurement Technology in Assessing Epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis, and Depression: Delphi Study

    Get PDF
    Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS), epilepsy, and depression are chronic central nervous system conditions in which remote measurement technology (RMT) may offer benefits compared with usual assessment. We previously worked with clinicians, patients, and researchers to develop 13 use cases for RMT: 5 in epilepsy (seizure alert, seizure counting, risk scoring, triage support, and trend analysis), 3 in MS (detecting silent progression, detecting depression in MS, and donating data to a biobank), and 5 in depression (detecting trends, reviewing treatment, self-management, comorbid monitoring, and carer alert). Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the use cases and related implementation issues with an expert panel of clinicians external to our project consortium. Methods: We used a Delphi exercise to validate the use cases and suggest a prioritization among them and to ascertain the importance of a variety of implementation issues related to RMT. The expert panel included clinicians from across Europe who were external to the project consortium. The study had 2 survey rounds (n=23 and n=17) and a follow-up interview round (n=9). Data were analyzed for consensus between participants and for stability between survey rounds. The interviews explored the reasons for answers given in the survey. Results: The findings showed high stability between rounds on questions related to specific use cases but lower stability on questions relating to wider issues around the implementation of RMT. Overall, questions on wider issues also had less consensus. All 5 use cases for epilepsy (seizure alert, seizure counting, risk scoring, triage support, and trend analysis) were considered beneficial, with consensus among participants above the a priori threshold for most questions, although use case 3 (risk scoring) was considered less likely to facilitate or catalyze care. There was very little consensus on the benefits of the use cases in MS, although this may have resulted from a higher dropout rate of MS clinicians (50%). Participants agreed that there would be benefits for all 5 of the depression use cases, although fewer questions on use case 4 (triage support) reached consensus agreement than for depression use cases 1 (detecting trends), 2 (reviewing treatment), 3 (self-management), and 5 (carer alert). The qualitative analysis revealed further insights into each use case and generated 8 themes on practical issues related to implementation. Conclusions: Overall, these findings inform the prioritization of use cases for RMT that could be developed in future work, which may include clinical trials, cost-effectiveness studies, and the commercial development of RMT products and services. Priorities for further development include the use of RMT to provide more accurate records of symptoms and treatment response than is currently possible and to provide data that could help inform patient triage and generate timely alerts for patients and carers

    In vivo hippocampal subfield volumes in bipolar disorder—A mega-analysis from The Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis Bipolar Disorder Working Group

    Get PDF
    The hippocampus consists of anatomically and functionally distinct subfields that may be differentially involved in the pathophysiology of bipolar disorder (BD). Here we, the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta‐Analysis Bipolar Disorder workinggroup, study hippocampal subfield volumetry in BD. T1‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging scans from 4,698 individuals (BD = 1,472, healthy controls [HC] = 3,226) from 23 sites worldwide were processed with FreeSurfer. We used linear mixed‐effects models and mega‐analysis to investigate differences in hippocampal subfield volumes between BD and HC, followed by analyses of clinical characteristics and medication use. BD showed significantly smaller volumes of the whole hippocampus (Cohen's d = −0.20), cornu ammonis (CA)1 (d = −0.18), CA2/3 (d = −0.11), CA4 (d = −0.19), molecular layer (d = −0.21), granule cell layer of dentate gyrus (d = −0.21), hippocampal tail (d = −0.10), subiculum (d = −0.15), presubiculum (d = −0.18), and hippocampal amygdala transition area (d = −0.17) compared to HC. Lithium users did not show volume differences compared to HC, while non‐users did. Antipsychotics or antiepileptic use was associated with smaller volumes. In this largest study of hippocampal subfields in BD to date, we show widespread reductions in nine of 12 subfields studied. The associations were modulated by medication use and specifically the lack of differences between lithium users and HC supports a possible protective role of lithium in BD
    corecore