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.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among breast cancer patients at University Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKMMC), Kuala Lumpur. A total of 205 patients who were diagnosed between 2007 until 2010 were interviewed using the questionnaires of Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HADS). The associated factors investigated concerned socio-demographics, socio economic background and the cancer status. Descriptive analysis, chi-squared tests and logistic regression were used for the statistical test analysis.

RESULTS: The prevalence of anxiety was 31.7% (n=65 ) and of depression was 22.0% (n=45) among the breast cancer patients. Age group (p= 0.032), monthly income (p=0.015) and number of visits per month (p=0.007) were significantly associated with anxiety. For depression, marital status (p=0.012), accompanying person (p=0.041), financial support (p-0.007) and felt burden (p=0.038) were significantly associated. In binary logistic regression, those in the younger age group were low monthly income were 2 times more likely to be associated with anxiety. Having less financial support and being single were 3 and 4 times more likely to be associated with depression.

METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study where patients with haematological cancers attending two major hospitals were recruited. Anxiety and depression symptoms were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS). Quality of life (QoL) of these patients was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30). An overall summary QoL score in combination with financial difficulty score and global health score were used for analysis.

RESULTS: A total of 319 patients were recruited. Thirty-three percent of patients had anxiety symptoms, 23.5% had depression symptoms. In summary the overall score of QoL is significantly lower in patients with higher scores for depression and anxiety, (p<0.05). Patients who exhibit anxiety symptoms were more frequently female, still undergoing treatment whereas patients who had higher depression scores were older and had acute leukemias or myeloproliferative neoplasms. Patients who have depression are significantly associated with a higher financial difficulty score, p<0.05.

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.