Joël Bühler1, Florian Seemüller2, Damian Läge3. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: j.buehler@psychologie.uzh.ch. 2. Departement of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany; Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, kbo-Lech-Mangfall-Klinik, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression research has been trying to improve the response rates to treatments by identifying a valid set of differential predictor variables. Potential candidates have been proposed, one of which were different subtypes of depression. However, the results on the predictive quality of subtypes on treatment are conflicting. METHODS: The analyzed data consisted of Hamilton Depression Rating Scales (HAM-D17) of 879 depressive inpatients, which were recruited in a naturalistic multicenter study. Mean length of stay was 9.9 weeks. In a first step, a Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was conducted to classify the patients into smaller groups. In a second step, the class variable was included in a Linear Mixed Effects model to predict the same patients' response to treatment. RESULTS: Five classes were obtained from LCA, showing substantially different symptom profiles. One of the classes, with a symptom profile similar to melancholic depression, showed substantially slower response to treatment (i.e., estimated time to remission; 11.3 weeks) than the remaining classes in the study (6.6-8.6 weeks). LIMITATIONS: The applied measurement instrument, the HAM-D17, did not include items for two additional, frequently found subtypes of depression: psychotic and atypical depression. Thus, these subtypes could not emerge in the LCA. Furthermore, there was no systematic variation of treatment in the data. Thus, a differential effect of the classes on treatment could not be measured. CONCLUSIONS: The classification of patients according to their symptom profiles seems to be a potent predictor for treatment response. However, the obtained symptom patterns are not completely congruent with the theoretically proposed subgroups. Against the background of the results, dividing melancholic depression in a rather cognitive and vegetative subtype may be promising.
BACKGROUND:Depression research has been trying to improve the response rates to treatments by identifying a valid set of differential predictor variables. Potential candidates have been proposed, one of which were different subtypes of depression. However, the results on the predictive quality of subtypes on treatment are conflicting. METHODS: The analyzed data consisted of Hamilton Depression Rating Scales (HAM-D17) of 879 depressive inpatients, which were recruited in a naturalistic multicenter study. Mean length of stay was 9.9 weeks. In a first step, a Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was conducted to classify the patients into smaller groups. In a second step, the class variable was included in a Linear Mixed Effects model to predict the same patients' response to treatment. RESULTS: Five classes were obtained from LCA, showing substantially different symptom profiles. One of the classes, with a symptom profile similar to melancholic depression, showed substantially slower response to treatment (i.e., estimated time to remission; 11.3 weeks) than the remaining classes in the study (6.6-8.6 weeks). LIMITATIONS: The applied measurement instrument, the HAM-D17, did not include items for two additional, frequently found subtypes of depression: psychotic and atypical depression. Thus, these subtypes could not emerge in the LCA. Furthermore, there was no systematic variation of treatment in the data. Thus, a differential effect of the classes on treatment could not be measured. CONCLUSIONS: The classification of patients according to their symptom profiles seems to be a potent predictor for treatment response. However, the obtained symptom patterns are not completely congruent with the theoretically proposed subgroups. Against the background of the results, dividing melancholic depression in a rather cognitive and vegetative subtype may be promising.
Authors: Stephen F Smagula; Meredith L Wallace; Stewart J Anderson; Jordan F Karp; Eric J Lenze; Benoit H Mulsant; Meryl A Butters; Daniel M Blumberger; Breno S Diniz; Francis E Lotrich; Mary Amanda Dew; Charles F Reynolds Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Richard Musil; Florian Seemüller; Sebastian Meyer; Ilja Spellmann; Mazda Adli; Michael Bauer; Klaus-Thomas Kronmüller; Peter Brieger; Gerd Laux; Wolfram Bender; Isabella Heuser; Robert Fisher; Wolfgang Gaebel; Rebecca Schennach; Hans-Jürgen Möller; Michael Riedel Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Alan M Rathbun; Megan S Schuler; Elizabeth A Stuart; Michelle D Shardell; Michelle S Yau; Joseph J Gallo; Alice S Ryan; Marc C Hochberg Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Stephen F Smagula; Meryl A Butters; Stewart J Anderson; Eric J Lenze; Mary Amanda Dew; Benoit H Mulsant; Francis E Lotrich; Howard Aizenstein; Charles F Reynolds Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Megan S Schuler; Stephen E Gilman; Rachel M Burns; Elizabeth Roth; Joshua Breslau Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Riya Paul; Till F M Andlauer; Darina Czamara; David Hoehn; Susanne Lucae; Benno Pütz; Cathryn M Lewis; Rudolf Uher; Bertram Müller-Myhsok; Marcus Ising; Philipp G Sämann Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 6.222