RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Pain comorbid with depression is frequently encountered in clinical settings and often leads to significant impaired functioning. Given the complexity of comorbidities, it is important to address both pain and depressive symptoms when evaluating treatment options. AIM: To review studies addressing pain comorbid with depression, and to report the impact of current treatments. METHOD: A systematic search of the literature databases was conducted according to predefined criteria. Two authors independently conducted a focused analysis of the full-text articles and reached a consensus on 28 articles to be included in this review. RESULTS: Overall, studies suggested that pain and depression are highly intertwined and may co-exacerbate physical and psychological symptoms. These symptoms could lead to poor physical functional outcomes and longer duration of symptoms. An important biochemical basis for pain and depression focuses on serotonergic and norepinephrine systems, which is evident in the pain-ameliorating properties of serotonergic and norepinephrine antidepressants. Alternative pharmacotherapies such as ketamine and cannabinoids appear to be safe and effective options for improving depressive symptoms and ameliorating pain. In addition, cognitive-behavioral therapy may be a promising tool in the management of chronic pain and depression. CONCLUSION: The majority of the literature indicates that patients with pain and depression experience reduced physical, mental, and social functioning as opposed to patients with only depression or only pain. In addition, ketamine, psychotropic, and cognitive-behavioral therapies present promising options for treating both pain and depression.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Depression among hospitalized patients is often unrecognized, undiagnosed, and therefore untreated. Little is known about the feasibility of screening for depression during hospitalization, or whether depression is associated with poorer outcomes, longer hospital stays, and higher readmission rates. We searched PubMed and PsycINFO for published, peer-reviewed articles in English (1990-2016) using search terms designed to capture studies that tested the performance of depression screening tools in inpatient settings and studies that examined associations between depression detected during hospitalization and clinical or utilization outcomes. Two investigators reviewed each full-text article and extracted data. The prevalence of depression ranged from 5% to 60%, with a median of 33%, among hospitalized patients. Several screening tools identified showed high sensitivity and specificity, even when self-administered by patients or when abbreviated versions were administered by individuals without formal training. With regard to outcomes, studies from several individual hospitals found depression to be associated with poorer functional outcomes, worse physical health, and returns to the hospital after discharge. These findings suggest that depression screening may be feasible in the inpatient setting, and that more research is warranted to determine whether screening for and treating depression during hospitalization can improve patient outcomes. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:118-125.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIMS: This analysis aims at examining if patient-reported variables such as hope for improvement and patient satisfaction with clinician/treatment could influence the outcome major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment, namely depression remission, in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: The STAR*D study was conducted at 18 primary care and 23 psychiatric care settings in the United States from 2001-2007 and was funded by the National Institute of Mental health (NIMH). The analysis contained in this manuscript was conceptualized at the Cedars-Sinai Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences and performed at the UCLA School of Public Health. METHODOLOGY: Using data from STAR*D, the current study used logistic regression and survival analyses to examine the relationship between depressive symptoms remission and two sets of self-reported factors: Hope for improvement and, Patient satisfaction with treatment/clinician. RESULTS: First, more than 90% of STAR*D patients reported having high hope for improvement (agree or strongly agree) and more than 66% endorsed high satisfaction with clinicians and more than 50% expressed high satisfaction with treatments (very or mostly satisfied). Second, hope for improvement was predictive of depression remission (p<0.05). Third, satisfaction with clinician/treatment, did not predict remission. CONCLUSION: This study shows the impact that patients' subjective hope for improvement can have on predicting depression remission in contrast to satisfaction with clinician/treatment. Future studies should prospectively incorporate patients' subjective attitudes regarding hope for improvement and satisfaction with clinicians and treatments as mediators and moderators of MDD treatment success.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To track the outcomes of bipolar patients who had remitted from an acute manic episode on single- and multiple-drug regimens including lithium (LI), valproate (VPA), and carbamazepine (CBZ), in order to compare relapse rates on 1, 2, or 3 medications. METHODS: Following treatment of an acute manic episode and a 1-month period of no signs of mood episodes, patients were evaluated at 1- to 2-month intervals as to the kind of regimen required to maintain their stability while continuing on this regimen for 2 years. Medication regimens included 1, 2, or 3 of the following drugs: LI, VPA, and/or CBZ. The 3 medication groups were followed from entry into the study through 3 possible end points based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition checklist: "NO-Relapse," "Relapse," or "Dropped out." RESULTS: Of the 1312 patients included in the study and followed up for 2 years, 281 patients (21.4%) were maintained on a single drug (LI, VPA, or CBZ), 852 (65%) on 2 drugs, and 179 (13.6%) on 3 or more drugs. A smaller percentage of patients on 1 medication had NO-Relapse for 2 years (22.8%), compared with patients on 2 medications (43.9%) and patients on 3 or more medications (41.9%): χ2 = 40.3, P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that overall, of the bipolar patients who were asymptomatic at 1 month, a smaller percentage of patients on 1 medication continued to be stable for 2 years, compared with patients on 2 medications and patients on 3 or more medications.

Asunto(s)