Nick Meader

Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings: a meta-analysis of 94 interview-based studies

BACKGROUND Substantial uncertainty exists about prevalence of mood disorders in patients with cancer, including those in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings. We aimed to quantitatively summarise the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustments disorders in these settings. METHODS We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and Web of Knowledge for studies that examined well-defined depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder in adults with cancer in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings. We restricted studies to those using psychiatric interviews. Studies were reviewed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and a proportion meta-analysis was done. FINDINGS We identified 24 studies with 4007 individuals across seven countries in palliative-care settings. Meta-analytical pooled prevalence of depression defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria was 16·5% (95% CI 13·1-20·3), 14·3% (11·1-17·9) for DSM-defined major depression, and 9·6% (3·6-18·1) for DSM-defined minor depression. Prevalence of adjustment disorder alone was 15·4% (10·1-21·6) and of anxiety disorders 9·8% (6·8-13·2). Prevalence of all types of depression combined was of 24·6% (17·5-32·4), depression or adjustment disorder 24·7% (20·8-28·8), and all types of mood disorder 29·0% (10·1-52·9). We identified 70 studies with 10,071 individuals across 14 countries in oncological and haematological settings. Prevalence of depression by DSM or ICD criteria was 16·3% (13·4-19·5); for DSM-defined major depression it was 14·9% (12·2-17·7) and for DSM-defined minor depression 19·2% (9·1-31·9). Prevalence of adjustment disorder was 19·4% (14·5-24·8), anxiety 10·3% (5·1-17·0), and dysthymia 2·7% (1·7-4·0). Combination diagnoses were common; all types of depression occurred in 20·7% (12·9-29·8) of patients, depression or adjustment disorder in 31·6% (25·0-38·7), and any mood disorder in 38·2% (28·4-48·6). There were few consistent correlates of depression: there was no effect of age, sex, or clinical setting and inadequate data to examine cancer type and illness duration. INTERPRETATION Interview-defined depression and anxiety is less common in patients with cancer than previously thought, although some combination of mood disorders occurs in 30-40% of patients in hospital settings without a significant difference between palliative-care and non-palliative-care settings. Clinicians should remain vigilant for mood complications, not just depression. FUNDING None.

Diagnostic validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in cancer and palliative settings: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To examine the validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in the identification of psychiatric complications of cancer, as defined by a robust criterion standard. METHODS 50 analyses tested the depression subscale (HADS-D), anxiety subscale (HADS-A) or combined scales (HADS-T) against syndromal (clinical) depression (n=22), syndromal anxiety (n=4) or any mental ill health/distress (n=24), all defined by semi-structured psychiatric interview. RESULTS The HADS and its subscales had both strengths and limitations. Overall it appeared to perform marginally better in non-palliative cancer settings. Specific findings for each subscale were as follows. In the identification of depression the HADS-T, HADS-D and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 82.0%, 77.0%; 71.6%, 82.6% and 80.5%, 77.8%, respectively. All versions performed poorly in case-finding but well in a screening capacity. For anxiety there were no HADS-D studies. The HADS-T and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 83.9%, 69.9% and 48.7%, 78.7%. They were poor at case-finding but good as screening instruments. For distress (any mental ill health) the HADS-T, HADS-D and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 72.8%, 80.6%; 75.7%, 66.3% and 65.7%, 71.3%, respectively. When screening for distress and anxiety the HADS-T was the optimal subscale. CONCLUSION For the identification of depression, anxiety or distress in cancer settings, the HADS (including subscales) is not recommended as a case-finding instrument but it may, subject to concerns about its length, be a suitable addition to screening programme.

A checklist designed to aid consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments: development and pilot validation

BackgroundThe grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach is widely implemented in health technology assessment and guideline development organisations throughout the world. GRADE provides a transparent approach to reaching judgements about the quality of evidence on the effects of a health care intervention, but is complex and therefore challenging to apply in a consistent manner.MethodsWe developed a checklist to guide the researcher to extract the data required to make a GRADE assessment. We applied the checklist to 29 meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of health care interventions. Two reviewers used the checklist for each paper and used these data to rate the quality of evidence for a particular outcome.ResultsFor most (70%) checklist items, there was good agreement between reviewers. The main problems were for items relating to indirectness where considerable judgement is required.ConclusionsThere was consistent agreement between reviewers on most items in the checklist. The use of this checklist may be an aid to improving the consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments, particularly for inexperienced users or in rapid reviews without the resources to conduct assessments by two researchers independently.

Clinical recognition of dementia and cognitive impairment in primary care: a meta-analysis of physician accuracy.

Mitchell AJ, Meader N, Pentzek M. Clinical recognition of dementia and cognitive impairment in primary care: a meta‐analysis of physician accuracy.

Case identification of depression in patients with chronic physical health problems: a diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of 113 studies

BACKGROUND Depression is more likely in patients with chronic physical illness, and is associated with increased rates of disability and mortality. Effective treatment of depression may reduce morbidity and mortality. The use of two stem questions for case finding in diabetes and coronary heart disease is advocated in the Quality and Outcomes Framework, and has become normalised into primary care. AIM To define the most effective tool for use in consultations to detect depression in people with chronic physical illness. DESIGN Meta-analysis. METHOD The following data sources were searched: CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, from inception to July 2009. Three authors selected studies that examined identification tools and used an interview-based ICD (International Classification of Diseases) or DSM (Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) diagnosis of depression as reference standard. At least two authors independently extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed methodological quality. RESULTS A total of 113 studies met the eligibility criteria, providing data on 20,826 participants. It was found that two stem questions, PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire), the Zung, and GHQ-28 (General Health Questionnaire) were the optimal measures for case identification, but no method was sufficiently accurate to recommend as a definitive case-finding tool. Limitations were the moderate-to-high heterogeneity for most scales and the facts that few studies used ICD diagnoses as the reference standard, and that a variety of methods were used to determine DSM diagnoses. CONCLUSION Assessing both validity and ease of use, the two stem questions are the preferred method. However, clinicians should not rely on the two-questions approach alone, but should be confident to engage in a more detailed clinical assessment of patients who score positively.

Screening for poststroke major depression: a meta-analysis of diagnostic validity studies

Background Major depression is common in stroke patients and associated with increased rates of disability and mortality. Identifying depression may improve mental and physical health. The aim of this review was to determine the most accurate tool for detecting poststroke depression. Methods Seven databases were searched up to November 2012. Two authors selected studies using International Classification of Disease or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual diagnosis of depression as the reference standard. Two authors extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Included studies were synthesised using meta-analyses. Results A total of 24 included studies provided data on 2907 participants. The Center of Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CESD) (sensitivity: 0.75; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85; specificity: 0.88; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) (sensitivity: 0.84; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.90; specificity:0.83; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.90) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 (sensitivity: 0.86; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94; specificity: 0.79; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.90) appeared to be the optimal measures for screening measures. However, the clinical utility of all tools was modest for case-finding. Interpretation There are a number of possible instruments that may help in screening for poststroke depression but none are satisfactory for case-finding. Preliminary data suggests the CESD, HDRS or the PHQ-9 as the most promising options. Although it should be noted such scales should not be used in isolation but followed up with a more detailed clinical assessment. While there is promising data for the PHQ-2 in other populations, it performed less well than other measures.

Meta-analysis of screening and case finding tools for depression in cancer: Evidence based recommendations for clinical practice on behalf of the Depression in Cancer Care consensus group

BACKGROUND To examine the validity of screening and case-finding tools used in the identification of depression as defined by an ICD10/DSM-IV criterion standard. METHODS We identified 63 studies involving 19 tools (in 33 publications) designed to help clinicians identify depression in cancer settings. We used a standardized rating system. We excluded 11 tools without at least two independent studies, leaving 8 tools for comparison. RESULTS Across all cancer stages there were 56 diagnostic validity studies (n=10,009). For case-finding, one stem question, two stem questions and the BDI-II all had level 2 evidence (2a, 2b and 2c respectively) and given their better acceptability we gave the stem questions a grade B recommendation. For screening, two stem questions had level 1b evidence (with high acceptability) and the BDI-II had level 2c evidence. For every 100 people screened in advanced cancer, the two questions would accurately detect 18 cases, while missing only 1 and correctly reassure 74 with 7 falsely identified. For every 100 people screened in non-palliative settings the BDI-II would accurately detect 17 cases, missing 2 and correctly re-assure 70, with 11 falsely identified as cases. The main cautions are the reliance on DSM-IV definitions of major depression, the large number of small studies and the paucity of data for many tools in specific settings. CONCLUSIONS Although no single tool could be offered unqualified support, several tools are likely to improve upon unassisted clinical recognition. In clinical practice, all tools should form part of an integrated approach involving further follow-up, clinical assessment and evidence based therapy.

Depression in adults, including those with a chronic physical health problem: summary of NICE guidance

Each year 6% of adults will experience an episode of depression, and over the course of a person’s lifetime more than 15% of the population will have an episode.1 2 3 4 Depression (as defined by the American Psychiatric Association5) is the leading cause of suicide and currently the fourth highest disease burden on society in terms of its treatment costs, its effect on families and carers, and its impact on productivity in the workplace. Depression can be disabling and distressing and for many people can become a chronic disorder, especially if inadequately treated. It is about two to three times more common in people with a chronic physical health problem than in people who are in good physical health.6 Chronic physical health problems can precipitate and exacerbate depression, but depression can also adversely affect outcomes of coexisting physical illnesses, including increased mortality. Furthermore, depression can be a risk factor for some physical illnesses, such as cardiovascular disease.7 This article summarises the most recent recommendations on depression from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): an updated guideline on the management and treatment of depression in adults8 and a new guideline on depression focusing on adults with a chronic physical health problem.9 In both guidelines diagnosis was based on the criteria of the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders , fourth edition (DSM-IV), which require the presence of at least five symptoms and of impaired function persisting for at least two weeks.5 NICE recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the best available evidence. When minimal evidence is available, recommendations are based on the experience and opinion of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) of what constitutes good practice. Evidence levels for the recommendations are given in italic in square brackets. …

Pharmacological interventions for people with depression and chronic physical health problems: systematic review and meta-analyses of safety and efficacy.

BACKGROUND Antidepressant drugs are widely used in the treatment of depression in people with chronic physical health problems. AIMS To examine evidence related to efficacy, tolerability and safety of antidepressants for people with depression and with chronic physical health problems. METHOD Meta-analyses of randomised controlled efficacy trials of antidepressants in depression in chronic physical health conditions. Systematic review of safety studies. RESULTS Sixty-three studies met inclusion criteria (5794 participants). In placebo-controlled studies, antidepressants showed a significant advantage in respect to remission and/or response: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) risk ratio (RR) = 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.91) for remission, RR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.97) for response; tricyclics RR = 0.70 (95% CI 0.40-1.25 (not significant)) for remission, RR = 0.55 (95% 0.43-0.70) for response. Both groups of drugs were less well tolerated than placebo (leaving study early due to adverse effects) for SSRIs RR = 1.80 (95% CI 1.16-2.78), for tricyclics RR = 2.00 (95% CI 0.99-3.57). Only SSRIs were shown to improve quality of life. Direct comparisons of SSRIs and tricyclics revealed no advantage for either group for remission, response, effect size or tolerability. Effectiveness studies suggest a neutral or beneficial effect on mortality for antidepressants in participants with recent myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS Antidepressants are efficacious and safe in the treatment of depression occurring in the context of chronic physical health problems. The SSRIs are probably the antidepressants of first choice given their demonstrable effect on quality of life and their apparent safety in cardiovascular disease.

Characteristics of Interventions Targeting Multiple Lifestyle Risk Behaviours in Adult Populations: A Systematic Scoping Review

Background Modifiable lifestyle risk behaviours such as smoking, unhealthy diet, physical inactivity and alcohol misuse are the leading causes of major, non-communicable diseases worldwide. It is increasingly being recognised that interventions which target more than one risk behaviour may be an effective and efficient way of improving people’s lifestyles. To date, there has been no attempt to summarise the global evidence base for interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours. Objective To identify and map the characteristics of studies evaluating multiple risk behaviour change interventions targeted at adult populations in any country. Methods Seven bibliographic databases were searched between January, 1990, and January/ May, 2013. Authors of protocols, conference abstracts, and other relevant articles were contacted. Study characteristics were extracted and inputted into Eppi-Reviewer 4. Results In total, 220 studies were included in the scoping review. Most were randomised controlled trials (62%) conducted in the United States (49%), and targeted diet and physical activity (56%) in people from general populations (14%) or subgroups of general populations (45%). Very few studies had been conducted in the Middle East (2%), Africa (0.5%), or South America (0.5%). There was also a scarcity of studies conducted among young adults (1%), or racial and minority ethnic populations (4%) worldwide. Conclusions Research is required to investigate the interrelationships of lifestyle risk behaviours in varying cultural contexts around the world. Cross-cultural development and evaluation of multiple risk behaviour change interventions is also needed, particularly in populations of young adults and racial and minority ethnic populations.