Eiko I Fried1, Randolph M Nesse2. 1. University of Leuven, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Research Group of Quantitative Psychology and Individual Differences, Tiensestraat 102, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: Eiko.Fried@gmail.com. 2. Arizona State University, The Center for Evolution & Medicine, Tempe, AZ, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The DSM-5 encompasses a wide range of symptoms for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Symptoms are commonly added up to sum-scores, and thresholds differentiate between healthy and depressed individuals. The underlying assumption is that all patients diagnosed with MDD have a similar condition, and that sum-scores accurately reflect the severity of this condition. To test this assumption, we examined the number of DSM-5 depression symptom patterns in the "Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression" (STAR*D) study. METHODS: We investigated the number of unique symptom profiles reported by 3703 depressed outpatients at the beginning of the first treatment stage of STAR*D. RESULTS: Overall, we identified 1030 unique symptom profiles. Of these profiles, 864 profiles (83.9%) were endorsed by five or fewer subjects, and 501 profiles (48.6%) were endorsed by only one individual. The most common symptom profile exhibited a frequency of only 1.8%. Controlling for overall depression severity did not reduce the amount of observed heterogeneity. LIMITATIONS: Symptoms were dichotomized to construct symptom profiles. Many subjects enrolled in STAR*D reported medical conditions for which prescribed medications may have affected symptom presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The substantial symptom variation among individuals who all qualify for one diagnosis calls into question the status of MDD as a specific consistent syndrome and offers a potential explanation for the difficulty in documenting treatment efficacy. We suggest that the analysis of individual symptoms, their patterns, and their causal associations will provide insights that could not be discovered in studies relying on only sum-scores.
BACKGROUND: The DSM-5 encompasses a wide range of symptoms for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Symptoms are commonly added up to sum-scores, and thresholds differentiate between healthy and depressed individuals. The underlying assumption is that all patients diagnosed with MDD have a similar condition, and that sum-scores accurately reflect the severity of this condition. To test this assumption, we examined the number of DSM-5 depression symptom patterns in the "Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression" (STAR*D) study. METHODS: We investigated the number of unique symptom profiles reported by 3703 depressed outpatients at the beginning of the first treatment stage of STAR*D. RESULTS: Overall, we identified 1030 unique symptom profiles. Of these profiles, 864 profiles (83.9%) were endorsed by five or fewer subjects, and 501 profiles (48.6%) were endorsed by only one individual. The most common symptom profile exhibited a frequency of only 1.8%. Controlling for overall depression severity did not reduce the amount of observed heterogeneity. LIMITATIONS: Symptoms were dichotomized to construct symptom profiles. Many subjects enrolled in STAR*D reported medical conditions for which prescribed medications may have affected symptom presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The substantial symptom variation among individuals who all qualify for one diagnosis calls into question the status of MDD as a specific consistent syndrome and offers a potential explanation for the difficulty in documenting treatment efficacy. We suggest that the analysis of individual symptoms, their patterns, and their causal associations will provide insights that could not be discovered in studies relying on only sum-scores.
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia Berglund; Olga Demler; Robert Jin; Doreen Koretz; Kathleen R Merikangas; A John Rush; Ellen E Walters; Philip S Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Darrel A Regier; William E Narrow; Diana E Clarke; Helena C Kraemer; S Janet Kuramoto; Emily A Kuhl; David J Kupfer Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Vanessa Panaite; Alexandra Cowden Hindash; Lauren M Bylsma; Brent J Small; Kristen Salomon; Jonathan Rottenberg Journal: Int J Psychophysiol Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 2.997
Authors: Marta M Maslej; Toshiaki A Furukawa; Andrea Cipriani; Paul W Andrews; Benoit H Mulsant Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Ariela J E Kaiser; Carter J Funkhouser; Vijay A Mittal; Sebastian Walther; Stewart A Shankman Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 3.222