METHODS: The study enrolled 110 participants (age: M = 46.85, SD = 11.23; female: 55.45%) undergoing hospital treatment, of whom 87 were included in the pre-post analysis. Participants completed a German translation of MAIA-2 and the Beck Depression Inventory-II (pre-/post-treatment). Internal consistency reliability was determined by Cronbach's α/McDonalds's ω, sensitivity to change was determined by effect sizes, and MIDs were determined by distribution- (0.5*SD) and anchor-based approaches (mean change method; ROC curve cut-points).
RESULTS: Depression severity reduced over the course of treatment (Median = -65.22%), and 34.48% of patients achieved remission. Reliability was appropriate for post-treatment (range of ω: .70-.90), but questionable for two pre-treatment scales (Noticing: ω = .64; Not-Distracting: ω = .66). The eight dimensions of MAIA-2 were sensitive to change (standardized response mean: .32-.81; Cohen's effect size: .30-.92). Distribution-based MIDs (.38-.61) and anchor-based mean change MIDs (remission vs. partial response: .00-.85; partial response vs. nonresponse: .08-.88) were established on the group level. For six scales, ROC cut-points (remission: .00-1.33; response: -.20-1.00) demonstrated accurate classification to treatment response groups on the individual level.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the applicability of the MAIA-2 questionnaire in MDD. The updated version may have led to reliability improvements regarding the revised scales, but subthreshold reliability was evident prior to treatment. The measure's dimensions were sensitive to change. MIDs were established that corresponded with antidepressive treatment outcomes. Our findings are consistent with a growing area of research which considers somatic feelings as key contributors to mental health.
METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment for 6 weeks with lurasidone, 20-60 mg/day (n = 184) or 80-120 mg/day (n = 169), or placebo (n = 172). The primary end-point was change from baseline to Week 6 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).
RESULTS: Lurasidone treatment significantly reduced mean MADRS total scores from baseline to Week 6 for the 20-60-mg/day group (-13.6; adjusted P = 0.007; effect size = 0.33), but not for the 80-120-mg/day group (-12.6; adjusted P = 0.057; effect size = 0.22) compared with placebo (-10.6). Treatment with lurasidone 20-60 mg/day also improved MADRS response rates, functional impairment, and anxiety symptoms. The most common adverse events associated with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Lurasidone treatments were associated with minimal changes in weight, lipids, and measures of glycemic control.
CONCLUSION: Monotherapy with once daily doses of lurasidone 20-60 mg, but not 80-120 mg, significantly reduced depressive symptoms and improved functioning in patients with bipolar I depression. Results overall were consistent with previous studies, suggesting that lurasidone 20-60 mg/day is effective and safe in diverse ethnic populations, including Japanese.
METHODS: We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis. We fit bivariate random-effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy.
RESULTS: 16 742 participants (2097 major depression cases) from 54 studies were included. The correlation between PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 scores was 0.996 (95% confidence interval 0.996 to 0.996). The standard cutoff score of 10 for the PHQ-9 maximized sensitivity + specificity for the PHQ-8 among studies that used a semi-structured diagnostic interview reference standard (N = 27). At cutoff 10, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive by 0.02 (-0.06 to 0.00) and more specific by 0.01 (0.00 to 0.01) among those studies (N = 27), with similar results for studies that used other types of interviews (N = 27). For all 54 primary studies combined, across all cutoffs, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive than the PHQ-9 by 0.00 to 0.05 (0.03 at cutoff 10), and specificity was within 0.01 for all cutoffs (0.00 to 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 total scores were similar. Sensitivity may be minimally reduced with the PHQ-8, but specificity is similar.
METHODS: A total of 148 depressive patients receiving escitalopram 10-20 mg/day were genotyped for 5HTTLPR and rs25531 polymorphisms. Clinical assessment was done at baseline and after 4, 8, and 12 weeks using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI). At the end of week 12, patients were defined as responders and non-responders based on HDRS17 and MADRS scores. Chi-square test and logistic regression analysis were performed to investigate the genotypic influence on treatment response. Comparison of continuous variables among different groups was done using Student's t test or one-way ANOVA.
RESULTS: Out of 148 study subjects, 65 (43.9%) were responders and 83 (56.08%) were non-responders. We observed a significant (p value
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a single-blind RCT (October 2017 -May 2019) with Chin (39.3%), Kachin (15.7%), and Rohingya (45%) refugees living in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The trial included 170 participants receiving six 45-minute weekly sessions of IAT (97.6% retention, 4 lost to follow-up) and 161 receiving a multicomponent CBT also involving six 45-minute weekly sessions (96.8% retention, 5 lost to follow-up). Participants (mean age: 30.8 years, SD = 9.6) had experienced and/or witnessed an average 10.1 types (SD = 5.9, range = 1-27) of traumatic events. We applied a single-blind design in which independent assessors of pre- and posttreatment indices were masked in relation to participants' treatment allocation status. Primary outcomes were symptom scores of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Complex PTSD (CPTSD), Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), the 5 scales of the Adaptive Stress Index (ASI), and a measure of resilience (the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale [CDRS]). Compared to CBT, an intention-to-treat analysis (n = 331) at 6-week posttreatment follow-up demonstrated greater reductions in the IAT arm for all common mental disorder (CMD) symptoms and ASI domains except for ASI-3 (injustice), as well as increases in the resilience scores. Adjusted average treatment effects assessing the differences in posttreatment scores between IAT and CBT (with baseline scores as covariates) were -0.08 (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.02, p = 0.012) for PTSD, -0.07 (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.01) for CPTSD, -0.07 for MDD (95% CI: -0.13 to -0.01, p = 0.025), 0.16 for CDRS (95% CI: 0.06-0.026, p ≤ 0.001), -0.12 (95% CI: -0.20 to -0.03, p ≤ 0.001) for ASI-1 (safety/security), -0.10 for ASI-2 (traumatic losses; 95% CI: -0.18 to -0.02, p = 0.02), -0.03 for ASI-3 (injustice; (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.06, p = 0.513), -0.12 for ASI-4 (role/identity disruptions; 95% CI: -0.21 to -0.04, p ≤ 0.001), and -0.18 for ASI-5 (existential meaning; 95% CI: -0.19 to -0.05, p ≤ 0.001). Compared to CBT, the IAT group had larger effect sizes for all indices (except for resilience) including PTSD (IAT, d = 0.93 versus CBT, d = 0.87), CPTSD (d = 1.27 versus d = 1.02), MDD (d = 1.4 versus d = 1.11), ASI-1 (d = 1.1 versus d = 0.85), ASI-2 (d = 0.81 versus d = 0.66), ASI-3 (d = 0.49 versus d = 0.42), ASI-4 (d = 0.86 versus d = 0.67), and ASI-5 (d = 0.72 versus d = 0.53). No adverse events were recorded for either therapy. Limitations include a possible allegiance effect (the authors inadvertently conveying disproportionate enthusiasm for IAT in training and supervision), cross-over effects (counsellors applying elements of one therapy in delivering the other), and the brief period of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CBT, IAT showed superiority in improving mental health symptoms and adaptative stress from baseline to 6-week posttreatment. The differences in scores between IAT and CBT were modest and future studies conducted by independent research teams need to confirm the findings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered under Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (http://www.anzctr.org.au/). The trial registration number is: ACTRN12617001452381.
METHODS: The present meta-analysis was conducted between January 2000-August 2019. Articles related to the subject matter were obtained by searching Scopus, Sciencedirect, SID, magiran, Barakat Knowledge Network System, Medline (PubMed), and Google Scholar databases. The heterogeneity of the studies was evaluated using I2 index and the data were analyzed in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.
RESULTS: In a study of 3948 individuals aged 50-90 years, the overall prevalence of severe depression in Iranian older adult was 8.2% (95% CI, 4.14-6.3%) based on meta-analysis. Also, in order to investigate the effects of potential factors (sample size and year of study) on the heterogeneity of severe depression in Iranian older adult, meta-regression was used. It was reported that the prevalence of severe depression in Iranian older adult decreased with increasing sample size and increasing years of the study, which is significantly different (P
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire based on the study aims and previous literature was developed by the authors and mailed to all currently registered GPs in private clinics in Penang. Survey responses were analysed using SSPS version 21.
RESULTS: From a total of 386 questionnaires distributed, 112 (29%) were returned. Half of the respondents were unaware of the existence of any CPG for depression. One quarter reported not managing depression at all, while one third used anxiolytic monotherapy in moderate-severe depression. Almost 75 % of respondents reported making referrals to specialist psychiatric services for moderate-severe depression. Time constraints, patient non-adherence and a lack of depression management skills were perceived as the main barriers to depression care.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the need to engage privately practising primary care physicians in Malaysia to improve their skills in the management of depression. Future revisions of the Malaysian Depression CPG should directly involve more GPs from private practices at the planning, development and implementation stages, in order to increase its impact.
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.
METHODS: fNIRS signals during a verbal fluency task designed for clinical assessment was recorded for all participants. Demographics, clinical history and symptom severity were also noted.
FINDINGS: Compared to HCs (n = 31), both patient groups (MDD, n = 31; BPD, n = 31) displayed diminished haemodynamic response in the frontal, temporal and parietal cortices. Moreover, haemodynamic response in the right frontal cortex is markedly lower in patients with MDD compared to patients with BPD.
INTERPRETATION: Normal cortical function in patients with BPD is disrupted, but not as extensively as in patients with MDD. These results provide further neurophysiological evidence for the distinction of patients with MDD from patients with BPD.
DESIGN AND METHODS: Four PPSs, including headache, chest pain, low back pain, and muscle pain, and subjective depressive symptoms were assessed using the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised.
FINDINGS: Out of 528 participants, 390 (73.9%) had at least one PPS. After adjusting for sex, depression severity, disability, fatigue, physical health status, and mental health status, PPSs were found to be associated with crying easily, blaming oneself, feeling lonely, feeling blue, and worrying too much.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Almost three-quarters of Asian patients with MDD experience PPSs. PPSs are associated with some subjective feelings of depression.