Article

The Association between Physical Morbidity and Subtypes of Severe Depression

Unit for Psychiatric Research, Aalborg Psychiatric Hospital, Aarhus University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (Impact Factor: 9.37). 01/2013; 82(1):45-52. DOI: 10.1159/000337746
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background: Physical illness and depression are related, but the association between specific physical diseases and diagnostic subtypes of depression remains poorly understood. This study aimed to clarify the relationship between a number of physical diseases and the nonpsychotic and psychotic subtype of severe depression. Methods: This is a historical prospective cohort study. The study population consisted of all patients diagnosed with ICD-10 severe depression, either nonpsychotic or psychotic subtype, in Danish psychiatric hospitals between 1994 and 2008. The patients' history of physical disease was assessed using the Danish National Patient Register. Using logistic regression it was investigated whether specific physical diseases were associated with relative increased risk for subsequent development of either the nonpsychotic or psychotic depressive subtype. Results: A total of 24,173 patients with severe depression were included in the study. Of those, 8,260 (34%) were of the psychotic subtype. A history of the following physical diseases, as opposed to their absence, increased the relative risk for subsequent development of the nonpsychotic compared to the psychotic depressive subtype [adjusted incidence odds ratio (AIOR) nonpsychotic vs. psychotic]: ischemic heart disease (AIOR = 1.3, p < 0.001), hypertension (AIOR = 1.2, p = 0.008), stroke (AIOR = 1.2, p = 0.042) and chronic lower pulmonary disease (AIOR = 1.2, p = 0.005). The total load of physical disease also increased the relative risk of nonpsychotic depression [AIOR = 1.05 (per disease), p = 0.001]. Conclusions: This study revealed that, in severe depression, a history of physical disease increased the relative risk of the nonpsychotic rather than the psychotic subtype.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
77 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) has been validated as a method of assessing the severity and treatment outcomes of psychotic depression (PD). We aimed to compare the results of the PDAS in PD and non-psychotic depression (non-PD) patients and validate the PDAS as a diagnostic tool for PD. Methods We included 53 patients with PD and 441 with non-PD who participated in the Clinical Research Center for Depression study in South Korea. In addition to the PDAS, psychometric tools including the HAMD17, HAMA, BPRS, CGI-S, SOFAS, SSI-Beck, WHOQOL-BREF, AUDIT, and FTND were used to assess, respectively, depression, anxiety, overall symptoms, global severity, social functioning, suicidal ideation, quality of life, alcohol use, and nicotine use. Results After adjusting for age and total HAMD17 score, PD patients had higher scores for depressive mood, hallucinations, unusual thought content, suspiciousness, blunted affect, and emotional withdrawal on the PDAS and higher total scores on the SSI-Beck than non-PD patients. Binary logistic regression identified hallucinatory behavior and emotional withdrawal as predictors of PD. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that emotional withdrawal could be used to differentiate psychotic from non-psychotic depression. Limitations The inter-rater reliability for psychometric assessments was not evaluated. Conclusions In addition to assessing the severity and treatment outcomes of PD, PDAS can help in the diagnosis of PD.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) has been validated as a method of assessing the severity and treatment outcomes of psychotic depression (PD). We aimed to compare the results of the PDAS in PD and non-psychotic depression (non-PD) patients and validate the PDAS as a diagnostic tool for PD. Methods: We included 53 patients with PD and 441 with non-PD who participated in the Clinical Research Center for Depression study in South Korea. In addition to the PDAS, psychometric tools including the HAMD 17 , HAMA, BPRS, CGI-S, SOFAS, SSI-Beck, WHOQOL-BREF, AUDIT, and FTND were used to assess, respectively, depression, anxiety, overall symptoms, global severity, social functioning, suicidal ideation, quality of life, alcohol use, and nicotine use. Results: After adjusting for age and total HAMD 17 score, PD patients had higher scores for depressive mood, hallucinations, unusual thought content, suspiciousness, blunted affect, and emotional withdrawal on the PDAS and higher total scores on the SSI-Beck than non-PD patients. Binary logistic regression identified hallucinatory behavior and emotional withdrawal as predictors of PD. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that emotional withdrawal could be used to differentiate psychotic from non-psychotic depression. Limitations: The inter-rater reliability for psychometric assessments was not evaluated. Conclusions: In addition to assessing the severity and treatment outcomes of PD, PDAS can help in the diagnosis of PD.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 09/2014; 166:79-85. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.05.004 · 3.76 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent studies have indicated that the 11-item Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS), consisting of the 6-item melancholia subscale (HAM-D6) of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and 5 psychosis items from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), is a valid measure for the severity of psychotic depression. The aim of this study was to subject the PDAS, and its depression (HAM-D6) and psychosis (BPRS5) subscales to further validation. Patients diagnosed with psychotic depression at Danish psychiatric hospitals participated in semi-structured interviews. Video recordings of these interviews were assessed by two experienced psychiatrists (global severity rating of psychotic depression, depressive symptoms and psychotic symptoms) and by two young physicians (rating on 27 symptom items, including the 11 PDAS items). The clinical validity and responsiveness of the PDAS and its subscales was investigated by Spearman correlation analysis of the global severity ratings and the PDAS, HAM-D6, and BPRS5 total scores. The unidimensionality of the scales was tested by item response theory analysis (Mokken). Ratings from 39 participants with unipolar psychotic depression and nine participants with bipolar psychotic depression were included in the analysis. The Spearman correlation analysis indicated that the PDAS, HAM-D6 and BPRS5 were clinically valid (correlation coefficients from 0.78 to 0.85, p<0.001) and responsive (correlation coefficients from 0.72 to 0.86, p<0.001) measures of psychotic depression. According to the Mokken analysis, all three scales were unidimensional. The clinical validity, responsiveness and unidimensionality of the PDAS and its subscales were confirmed in an independent sample of patients with psychotic depression. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier B.V.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 11/2014; 173C:261-268. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.012 · 3.71 Impact Factor