Cees A. Th. Rijnders

Internal and external validity of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in a population-based sample of adults

BACKGROUND Follow-up studies of childhood ADHD have shown persistence of the disorder into adulthood, but no epidemiological data are yet available. METHOD ADHD DSM-IV symptoms were obtained by self-report in an adult population-based sample of 1813 adults (aged 18-75 years), that was drawn from an automated general practitioner system used in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. The structure of ADHD symptoms was analysed by means of confirmatory factor analyses. Other data used in this report are the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28), information about the presence of three core symptoms of ADHD in childhood, and about current psychosocial impairment. RESULTS The three-factor model that allowed for cross-loadings provided the best fit in the entire sample. This result was replicated across gender and age subsamples. Inattentive and hyperactivity symptom scores were significantly associated with measures of impairment, even after controlling for the GHQ-28. Subjects with four or more inattentive or hyperactive-impulsive symptoms were significantly more impaired than subjects with two, one and no symptoms. The prevalence of ADHD in adults was 1.0% (95% CI 0.6-1.6) and 2.5% (1.9-3.4) using a cutoff of six and four current symptoms respectively, and requiring the presence of all three core symptoms in childhood. CONCLUSIONS These results support the internal and external validity of ADHD in adults between 18 and 75 years. ADHD is not merely a child psychiatric disorder that persists into young adulthood, but an important and unique manifestation of psychopathology across the lifespan.

Anxiety and mood disorders in narcolepsy: a case–control study

INTRODUCTION Narcolepsy is a primary sleeping disorder with excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy as core symptoms. There is increasing interest in the psychiatric phenotype of narcolepsy. Although many authors suggest an overrepresentation of mood disorders, few systematic studies have been performed and conflicting results have been reported. Anxiety disorders in narcolepsy have only received little attention. METHODS We performed a case-control study in 60 narcolepsy patients and 120 age- and sex-matched controls from a previous population study. The Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry were used to assess symptoms and diagnostic classifications of mood and anxiety disorders. RESULTS Symptoms of mood disorders were reported by about one third of patients. However, the prevalence of formal mood disorder diagnoses - including major depression - was not increased. In contrast, more than half of the narcolepsy patients had anxiety or panic attacks. Thirty-five percent of the patients could be diagnosed with anxiety disorder (odds ratio=15.6), with social phobia being the most important diagnosis. There was no influence of age, sex, duration of illness or medication use on the prevalence of mood or anxiety symptoms and disorders. DISCUSSION Anxiety disorders, especially panic attacks and social phobias, often affect patients with narcolepsy. Although symptoms of mood disorders are present in many patients, the prevalence of major depression is not increased. Anxiety and mood symptoms could be secondary complications of the chronic symptoms of narcolepsy. Recent studies have shown that narcolepsy is caused by defective hypocretin signaling. As hypocretin neurotransmission is also involved in stress regulation and addiction, this raises the possibility that mood and anxiety symptoms are primary disease phenomena in narcolepsy.

Medically Unexplained and Explained Physical Symptoms in the General Population: Association with Prevalent and Incident Mental Disorders

Background Clinical studies have shown that Medically Unexplained Symptoms (MUS) are related to common mental disorders. It is unknown how often common mental disorders occur in subjects who have explained physical symptoms (PHY), MUS or both, in the general population, what the incidence rates are, and whether there is a difference between PHY and MUS in this respect. Aim To study the prevalence and incidence rates of mood, anxiety and substance use disorders in groups with PHY, MUS and combined MUS and PHY compared to a no-symptoms reference group in the general population. Method Data were derived from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2 (NEMESIS-2), a nationally representative face-to-face survey of the general population aged 18-64 years. We selected subjects with explained physical symptoms only (n=1952), with MUS only (n=177), with both MUS and PHY (n=209), and a reference group with no physical symptoms (n=4168). The assessment of common mental disorders was through the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between group membership and the prevalence and first-incidence rates of comorbid mental disorders, adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics. Results MUS were associated with the highest prevalence rates of mood and anxiety disorders, and combined MUS and PHY with the highest prevalence rates of substance disorder. Combined MUS and PHY were associated with a higher incidence rate of mood disorder only (OR 2.9 (95%CI:1.27,6.74)). Conclusion In the general population, PHY, MUS and the combination of both are related to mood and anxiety disorder, but odds are highest for combined MUS and PHY in relation to substance use disorder. Combined MUS and PHY are related to a greater incidence of mood disorder. These findings warrant further research into possibilities to improve recognition and early intervention in subjects with combined MUS and PHY.

Mental health care use in medically unexplained and explained physical symptoms: findings from a general population study

Objective The aim of this study was to explore mental health care utilization patterns in primary and specialized mental health care of people with unexplained or explained physical symptoms. Methods Data were derived from the first wave of the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2, a nationally representative face-to-face cohort study among the general population aged 18–64 years. We selected subjects with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) only (MUSonly; n=177), explained physical symptoms only (PHYonly, n=1,952), combined MUS and explained physical symptoms (MUS + PHY, n=209), and controls without physical symptoms (NONE, n=4,168). We studied entry into mental health care and the number of treatment contacts for mental problems, in both primary care and specialized mental health care. Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and presence of any 12-month mental disorder assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0. Results At the primary care level, all three groups of subjects with physical symptoms showed entry into care for mental health problems significantly more often than controls. The adjusted odds ratios were 2.29 (1.33, 3.95) for MUSonly, 1.55 (1.13, 2.12) for PHYonly, and 2.25 (1.41, 3.57) for MUS + PHY. At the specialized mental health care level, this was the case only for MUSonly subjects (adjusted odds ratio 1.65 [1.04, 2.61]). In both the primary and specialized mental health care, there were no significant differences between the four groups in the number of treatment contacts once they entered into treatment. Conclusion All sorts of physical symptoms, unexplained as well as explained, were associated with significant higher entry into primary care for mental problems. In specialized mental health care, this was true only for MUSonly. No differences were found in the number of treatment contacts. This warrants further research aimed at the content of the treatment contacts.

Complexity Assessed by the INTERMED in Patients With Somatic Symptom Disorder Visiting a Specialized Outpatient Mental Health Care Setting: A Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND Somatic symptom disorders (SSD), a new classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition is associated with problematic diagnostic procedures and treatment that lead to complex care. In somatic health care, the INTERMED has been used to assess levels of complexity; however, in SSD this instrument has not yet been applied. OBJECTIVE This study aims to explore complexity in patients with SSD using the INTERMED, hereby contributing to an increased comprehension of this new patient group. METHOD In this cross-sectional study, the INTERMED was used to assess complexity in outpatients with SSD at the Clinical Centre of Excellence for Body, Mind, and Health (The Netherlands), along biologic, psychologic, social, and health care domains. This was done retrospectively with patient files from consecutive patients from 2011 until 2015. RESULTS In the total SSD sample (N = 187), 63% was female, the mean age (standard deviation) was 42 (±12.4) years, with an average educational level. The mean INTERMED score was 23.5 indicating high overall complexity in this population. A high proportion of our sample (69%) scored as highly complex (>20). High complexity was associated with higher depression and anxiety scores, but not with a higher number of physical symptoms. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that patients with SSD form a high-complex group, with higher scores compared with literature about multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, or patient waiting for a liver transplant. INTERMED outcomes indicate a need for extensive diagnostic procedures and integrated multidisciplinary care for patients with SSD. Attention should especially be paid to mental disorders (depression and anxiety), given their association with high complexity.

Illness burden and physical outcomes associated with collaborative care in patients with comorbid depressive disorder in chronic medical conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE Collaborative care (CC) improves depressive symptoms in people with comorbid depressive disorder in chronic medical conditions, but its effect on physical symptoms has not yet systematically been reviewed. This study aims to do so. METHODS Systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the European and US Clinical Trial Registers. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CC compared to care as usual (CAU), in primary care and general hospital setting, reporting on physical and depressive symptoms as outcomes. Overall treatment effects were estimated for illness burden, physical outcomes and depression, respectively. RESULTS Twenty RCTs were included, with N=4774 patients. The overall effect size of CC versus CAU for illness burden was OR 1.64 (95%CI 1.47;1.83), d=0.27 (95%CI 0.21;0.33). Best physical outcomes in CC were found for hypertension with comorbiddepression. Overall, depression outcomes were better for CC than for CAU. Moderator analyses did not yield statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS CC is more effective than CAU in terms of illness burden, physical outcomes and depression, in patients with comorbid depression in chronic medical conditions. More research covering multiple medical conditions is needed. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on February 19th 2016: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/DisplayPDF.php?ID=CRD42016035553.