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: Elderly outpatients aged at least 65 years with a primary diagnosis of moderate to severe episode of recurrent MDD were recruited by psychiatrists in 44 clinical centers in 10 countries from October 2013 to January 2016. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tianeptine (n = 105), placebo (n = 107), or escitalopram (n = 99) for 8 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS₁₇) total score.
RESULTS: Tianeptine improved depressive symptoms, as evaluated by the HDRS₁₇ total score in terms of absolute change from baseline (week 0) to week 8 (placebo-tianeptine difference [SE] of 3.84 [0.85] points, P < .001, using a last-observation-carried-forward approach) and response to treatment (tianeptine: 46.7%; placebo: 34.0%, estimate [SE] = 12.70% [6.70], P = .06). A sensitivity analysis using a mixed model for repeated measures confirmed the main results on HDRS total score. The placebo-tianeptine difference (SE) was 0.66 (0.15) for Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.96; P < .001) and 0.57 (0.14) for Clinical Global Impressions- Improvement (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.83; P < .001). Positive results were also obtained with the active control escitalopram (HDRS₁₇ total score placebo-escitalopram difference of 4.09 ± 0.86 points, P < .001), therefore validating the sensitivity of the studied population. Tianeptine was well tolerated, with only minimal differences in tolerability from placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides robust evidence that an 8-week treatment period with tianeptine 25-50 mg is efficacious and well tolerated in depressed patients aged 65 years or older.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT identifier: 2012-005612-26.
METHODS: Data were combined from 3024 MDD cases and 2741 control subjects from nine cohorts contributing to the MDD Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. MDD-PRS were based on a discovery sample of ∼110,000 independent individuals. CT was assessed as exposure to sexual or physical abuse during childhood. In a subset of 1957 cases and 2002 control subjects, a more detailed five-domain measure additionally included emotional abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect.
RESULTS: MDD was associated with the MDD-PRS (odds ratio [OR] = 1.24, p = 3.6 × 10-5, R2 = 1.18%) and with CT (OR = 2.63, p = 3.5 × 10-18 and OR = 2.62, p = 1.4 ×10-5 for the two- and five-domain measures, respectively). No interaction was found between MDD-PRS and the two-domain and five-domain CT measure (OR = 1.00, p = .89 and OR = 1.05, p = .66).
CONCLUSIONS: No meta-analytic evidence for interaction between MDD-PRS and CT was found. This suggests that the previously reported interaction effects, although both statistically significant, can best be interpreted as chance findings. Further research is required, but this study suggests that the genetic heterogeneity of MDD is not attributable to genome-wide moderation of genetic effects by CT.
METHOD: Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) were conducted in Australian (between 1988 and 1990 and between 2010 and 2013) and Amish (between May 2010 and December 2011) samples in whom the Seasonal Pattern Assessment Questionnaire (SPAQ) had been administered, and the results were meta-analyzed in a total sample of 4,156 individuals. Genetic risk scores based on results from prior large GWAS studies of bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder (MDD), and schizophrenia were calculated to test for overlap in risk between psychiatric disorders and seasonality.
RESULTS: The most significant association was with rs11825064 (P = 1.7 × 10⁻⁶, β = 0.64, standard error = 0.13), an intergenic single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) found on chromosome 11. The evidence for overlap in risk factors was strongest for schizophrenia and seasonality, with the schizophrenia genetic profile scores explaining 3% of the variance in log-transformed global seasonality scores. Bipolar disorder genetic profile scores were also associated with seasonality, although at much weaker levels (minimum P value = 3.4 × 10⁻³), and no evidence for overlap in risk was detected between MDD and seasonality.
CONCLUSIONS: Common SNPs of large effect most likely do not exist for seasonality in the populations examined. As expected, there were overlapping genetic risk factors for bipolar disorder (but not MDD) with seasonality. Unexpectedly, the risk for schizophrenia and seasonality had the largest overlap, an unprecedented finding that requires replication in other populations and has potential clinical implications considering overlapping cognitive deficits in seasonal affective disorders and schizophrenia.
MATERIALS & METHODS: This is a case-control study consisting of 47 MDD patients and 47 healthy controls. MDD patients were treated with antidepressant drugs according to their physician's choice. The severity of MDD was assessed using Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at the time of recruitment. Healthy controls completed the Depression Anxiety Scoring System (DASS21) questionnaire to ensure they were in good mental health without history of MDD. The percentage and absolute count of CD4+ CD25+ Tregs and CD4+ CD25+ FOXP3+ Tregs were identified by multiparameter flow cytometry.
RESULTS: The percentage and absolute count of CD4+ CD25+ Treg cells were significantly higher in MDD patients than in healthy controls (P<0.001, in both cases). Likewise, the percentage and absolute count of CD4+ CD25+ FOXP3+ Treg cells were also significantly higher in MDD patients compared to healthy controls (P=0.003 and P=0.002, respectively). However, there was no significant correlation between the percentage and absolute count of CD4+ CD25+ Treg and CD4+ CD25+ FOXP3+ Treg cells with BDI or MADRS score.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that antidepressant treatments contributed to an upregulation of Tregs in MDD patients.
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: In this cross-sectional study, 101 TBI patients were interviewed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders to assess the rates of depressive and anxiety disorders after TBI. The association of socio-demographic and clinical factors with depressive and anxiety disorders were determined using Pearson's Chi-Square test.
RESULTS: A total of 25% of TBI patients (n = 25/101) were diagnosed with depressive disorders, of which 15% had major depressive disorder (n = 15/101) and 10% had minor depression (n = 10/101). Fourteen percent of TBI patients had anxiety disorders (n = 14/101), of which post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was the commonest anxiety disorder (9%, n = 9/101). Seven percent of TBI patients (n = 7/101) had comorbid depressive and anxiety disorders. The only factor associated with depressive disorder was the duration of TBI (≥ 1 year) while the only factor associated with anxiety disorder was the mechanism of trauma (assault).
CONCLUSION: Major depressive disorder, minor depression and PTSD are common psychiatric complications of TBI. Clinicians should screen for depressive and anxiety disorders in TBI patients, particularly those with ≥1 year of injury and had sustained TBI from assault.
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.