Literature DB >> 29228943

Reconsidering the prognosis of major depressive disorder across diagnostic boundaries: full recovery is the exception rather than the rule.

Judith Verduijn1, Josine E Verhoeven2, Yuri Milaneschi1, Robert A Schoevers3, Albert M van Hemert4, Aartjan T F Beekman1, Brenda W J H Penninx1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is often handled as an episodic and isolated disorder, resulting in an optimistic view about its prognosis. Herein, we test the idea that the prognosis of MDD changes if we vary the perspective in terms of (1) a longer time frame and (2) a broader diagnostic conceptualisation including dysthymia, (hypo)mania and anxiety disorders as relevant outcomes.
METHODS: Patients with current MDD at baseline (n = 903) and available 2-, 4-, and/or 6-year follow-up assessments were selected from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety, a psychiatric cohort study. Combining psychiatric DSM-IV-based diagnoses and life-chart data, patient course trajectories were classified as (1) recovered (no diagnoses at 2-year follow-up or thereafter), (2) recurrent without chronic episodes, (3) recurrent with chronic episodes or (4) consistently chronic since baseline. A chronic episode was defined as having a current diagnosis at the follow-up assessment and consistent symptoms over 2 years. Proportions of course trajectories were provided moving from a short, narrow perspective (2-year follow-up, considering only MDD diagnosis) to a long, broad perspective (6-year follow-up, including MDD, dysthymia, (hypo)mania and anxiety diagnoses).
RESULTS: With the short, narrow perspective, the recovery rate was 58% and 21% had a chronic episode. However, in the long, broad perspective the recovery rate was reduced to 17%, while 55% of the patients experienced chronic episodes.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from a long and rigorous follow-up in a large cohort suggests that most MDD patients have an unfavourable prognosis. Longer follow-up and broader diagnostic conceptualisation show that the majority of patients have a disabling and chronic disorder. Conceptualising and handling MDD as a narrowly defined and episodic disorder may underestimate the prognosis of the majority of depressed patients and, consequently, the type of care that is appropriate.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Affective disorder; Anxiety disorder; Comorbidity; Course; Longitudinal; Major depressive disorder; Prognosis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29228943      PMCID: PMC5725897          DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0972-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Med        ISSN: 1741-7015            Impact factor:   8.775


Background

Major depressive disorder (MDD) has been historically perceived as an episodic disorder. In the early 1900s, Kraepelin differentiated between ‘dementia praecox’ (now known as schizophrenia), which he considered chronic and progressive, and ‘(manic) depression’, which he described as episodic [1, 2]. This view has ever since dominated our understanding of depression [3-5]. Congruently, longitudinal observational research over the past century suggests that most MDD patients eventually recover from their index episode after relatively short follow-up assessments (e.g. 2 years), and suggests that, ultimately, only a limited proportion follows a chronic course [6, 7]. This is further underlined by the fact that most intervention trial research has stringent treatment delivery and has focused on the short-term remission of an episode. Moreover, randomised controlled trials typically include a subset of less severe patients that have, for example, shorter illness duration and lower rates of anxious and atypical symptom features [8]. Their course outcomes might therefore not be representative and may be more positive than in ‘real world’ patients, which has resulted in the idea that the majority of patients recover over a relatively short time span and that only a minority has a chronic course. Although the clinical course of MDD has been an extensive topic of debate, research outcomes have generally given rise to an optimistic view. Moreover, this has translated into correspondingly optimistic communication with patients and into clinical management that aims for relatively short and episode-oriented treatments. Although MDD may indeed be limited to a single episode in some patients, Judd et al. [9] have shown that most patients move in and out of more or less severe levels of symptoms over time. This suggests that, given a longer time frame, the prognosis is less favourable and that studies with a short follow-up time or relatively few assessments will tend to underestimate the prognosis of MDD. Further, although depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety disorders are conceptualised as distinct disorder groups, they are closely related in terms of genetics [10] and etiology, such as shared risk factors (e.g. childhood trauma and negative life events [11]) and similar physiological dysregulations [12]. Moreover, comorbidity levels are as high as 75% [13]; thus, taking into account anxiety disorders into the prognosis of MDD is extremely significant from the patients’ perspective. Finally, the three diagnostic constructs overlap in treatment outcomes and prognosis [14, 15]. Consequently, studies on the longitudinal course of MDD that do not take comorbidity into account might incline towards outcomes that are actually unrealistically favourable [16, 17]. Persons who have recovered from MDD and are labelled as such might still meet the full criteria of another, related psychiatric disorder and thus still suffer from marked functional impairment. It is therefore important, especially from the patients’ perspective, to consider the impact of other frequently co-occurring disorders, such as dysthymia, (hypo)mania and anxiety, when examining the full clinical course of MDD. In this paper, using data from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA), an on-going longitudinal psychiatric cohort study ideally designed to examine the long-term course of depressive and anxiety disorders [18], we test the idea that the course of patients with MDD changes seriously when different clinically meaningful course perspectives are considered. We examine the clinical course of MDD, expanding the perspective in terms of (1) a longer time frame and (2) a broader diagnostic conceptualisation including symptoms of closely related affective and anxiety disorders, thereby moving from a short, narrow course perspective to a long, broad course perspective. MDD might have a less favourable prognosis if one looks beyond diagnostic boundaries, which would warrant a change in our communication with patients and clinical management.

Methods

Study sample

Data were retrieved from NESDA [18], which, at baseline (2004–2007), consisted of 2981 persons aged between 18 and 65 years, recruited from community (19%), primary care (54%) and specialised mental healthcare (27%). The sampling frame was designed to represent the various developmental stages of depressive and anxiety disorders, and included patients with current or remitted depressive and/or anxiety disorder (74%) and healthy controls (26%). Exclusion criteria were (1) insufficient command of the Dutch language and (2) a primary clinical diagnosis of other severe psychiatric conditions such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. The study was approved by the Ethical Review Board of participating centres and all participants signed informed consent. Every 2 years, face-to-face follow-up assessments were conducted, with a response rate of 87.1% (n = 2596) at 2 years, 80.6% (n = 2402) at 4 years, and 75.7% (n = 2256) at 6 years. If participants missed an in-between follow-up assessment they were assessed over the time period since the last assessment. At baseline, a diagnosis of MDD was assessed with the DSM-IV Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) version 2.1 [19]. A total of 1115 participants were diagnosed with an MDD episode, of any duration, during the 6 months prior to baseline (i.e. a 6-month diagnosis). Depressive symptoms in the week prior to assessment were measured with the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS) self-report and were considered clinically relevant if the score was more than 13 [20]. The present study sample included 903 patients who had a current 6-month MDD diagnosis with clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, and who had at least one follow-up assessment available. Compared to those with a 6-month MDD diagnosis that were excluded (total n = 212) because of low IDS score (n = 70) or no follow-up (n = 142), the included sample was older (P = 0.002), but was similar with respect to sex and years of education. Follow-up information was available for 903 participants at 2 years, 811 participants at 4 years and 712 participants at 6 years, providing an overall of 3329 observations.

Sample descriptive characteristics

Age, sex and years of education were assessed during the baseline interview. Age at onset of MDD and whether the baseline episode was a first or recurrent MDD episode were derived from the CIDI. The severity of depressive and anxious symptoms in the week prior to assessment were examined using the IDS and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) – Self Report [21], respectively. Medications used in the month prior to baseline were registered according to the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification [22]. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (N06AB), tricyclic antidepressants (N06AA) and other antidepressants (N06A, not N06AA, not N06AB) were considered antidepressant treatment. Psychological treatment was considered received if at least three sessions provided by a healthcare professional were reported for the prior 6 months, as measured with the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for Costs associated with Psychiatric Illness [23]. Treatment was categorised as present (antidepressant and/or psychological treatment) or absent. A current comorbid diagnosis of dysthymia and/or anxiety disorder (social phobia, panic disorder, agoraphobia, generalised anxiety disorder (GAD)) was assessed with the CIDI [19].

Course trajectories

Course trajectories were determined using two sources of data collected during each 2-year follow-up assessment, namely (1) the CIDI and (2) the Life Chart Interview (LCI) [24], and by joining data from all follow-up assessments into a continuous record. The CIDI determined the presence of DSM-IV classified MDD, dysthymia, (hypo)mania symptoms and anxiety disorders during each 2-year follow-up. For all patients with a depressive, (hypo)mania or anxiety disorder diagnosis according to the CIDI interview, information on the LCI was considered. The LCI uses a calendar method, wherein life-events were recalled to refresh memory, after which the presence of at least mild depressive, (hypo)mania, anxious and/or avoidance symptoms – separately – at each month during the 2-year follow-up was determined. The proportion of time with symptoms (=duration) was calculated for each 2-year interval by dividing the number of months with symptoms by the total number of months between two assessments. An episode was considered chronic if a person had a diagnosis on the CIDI in the 6 months prior to assessment and consistent symptoms for a minimum of 2 years (≥85% of time) on the LCI. If a person experienced only one disorder (e.g. MDD), the duration of only that disorder (e.g. depressive symptoms) was taken into account. If a person experienced multiple disorders (e.g. MDD and GAD), symptom duration of these disorders (e.g. depressive and/or anxiety symptoms) were integrated. Symptom durations acquired by the LCI were thus only considered in the presence of a CIDI-diagnosed disorder. Subsequently, we classified four course trajectories describing the course at three time points (2-, 4- and 6-year follow-up): Recovered: no diagnosis at 2-year follow-up or thereafter; Recurrent, without chronic episodes: one or more diagnoses after baseline, but never a chronic episode; Recurrent, with chronic episodes: one or more diagnoses after baseline and at least one chronic episode, but not at every follow-up assessment; Consistently chronic: a diagnosis is consistently present, a chronic episode at every follow-up assessment. These course trajectories were described from three diagnostic perspectives, namely (1) MDD only, (2) affective disorders (MDD, dysthymia and (hypo)mania) and (3) affective and anxiety disorders (MDD, dysthymia, (hypo)mania, panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia and GAD). In total, this resulted in a stepwise comparison of the prognosis, stepping up in time (three follow-up periods) and broadening the diagnostic conceptualisation by including affective and anxiety disorders (three diagnostic perspectives).

Clinical validation characteristic

To test concurrent functional impairment we compared the level of disability of the four course trajectories at each assessment within the long, broad perspective (6-year follow-up, all affective and anxiety disorders, for n = 712 participants). Disability was measured with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS-II) [25] at all assessments. We included all subscales except for the 4-item work disability (total 32 items) to avoid missing answers due to MDD patients often not working.

Statistical analyses

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were reported as percentages, or means and standard deviations (SD). Occurrence of specific diagnoses, and the total time spent with depressive, anxious, avoidance and (hypo)mania symptoms, regardless of whether a CIDI diagnosis was present, between baseline and 2-year, baseline and 4-year, and baseline and 6-year follow-up were reported as percentages. The proportion of patients categorised in the defined course trajectories were presented in nine different pie charts reflecting the time by diagnostic perspectives. As a clinical validation of the course trajectories, the longitudinal association between disability scores (WHODAS-II) and the four course trajectories according to the long, broad perspective (6-year follow-up, all affective and anxiety disorders; n = 712; observations = 2661) was estimated using a linear generalised estimating equations (GEE) model (with an exchangeable correlation structure), accounting for within person correlation of repeated measures and missing observations. The GEE model included a categorical time variable indexing the assessment wave and was additionally adjusted for baseline age, sex and years of education. Analysis was conducted using SPSS version 22.0 [26].

Results

At baseline (Table 1), the mean age of the study sample was 41.4 years (SD = 12.0), 67% was female, and both the average scores on depressive and anxiety symptoms were indicative of moderate severity [27]. Additionally, more than two-thirds (70.9%) had at least one comorbid disorder at baseline.
Table 1

Descriptive characteristics of patients at baseline (n = 903)

Sociodemographics
 Age, years, mean (SD)41.4 (12.0)
 Female sex, % (n)67.0 (605)
 Education, years, mean (SD)11.6 (3.2)
Clinical characteristics
 Age at onset of major depressive disorder, years, mean (SD)27.3 (12.6)
 Recurrent episodes, yes, % (n)52.6 (475)
 Severity of depressive symptoms (IDS), mean (SD)33.9 (10.9)
 Severity of anxiety symptoms (BAI), mean (SD)18.6 (10.9)
 Treatment (antidepressants and/or psychotherapy), % (n)62.8 (567)
 Recruitment settingCommunity, % (n)8 (72)
Primary care, % (n)37.5 (339)
Specialised mental healthcare, % (n)54.5 (492)
 Current comorbiditya Dysthymia, % (n)24.1 (218)
Generalised anxiety disorder, % (n)30.2 (273)
Social phobia, % (n)35.5 (321)
Panic disorder, % (n)35.0 (316)
Agoraphobia, % (n)30.0 (271)
Any other diagnoses, % (n)70.9 (640)

aCurrent comorbidity = diagnosis present in 6 months prior to baseline; patients with comorbid disorders appear in more than one diagnosis group

BAI Beck Anxiety Inventory, IDS Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, n number, SD Standard Deviation

Descriptive characteristics of patients at baseline (n = 903) aCurrent comorbidity = diagnosis present in 6 months prior to baseline; patients with comorbid disorders appear in more than one diagnosis group BAI Beck Anxiety Inventory, IDS Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, n number, SD Standard Deviation During 2 years of follow-up (Table 2), the recurrence of MDD was 63.2% and 60.5% of patients had at least one other disorder. Over the entire 6 years of follow-up, the recurrence of MDD (after baseline) increased to 77.1% and 74.2% of participants had at least one other disorder.
Table 2

Occurrence of diagnoses after baseline at follow-upa

0 to 2-year follow-up n = 9030 to 4-year follow-up n = 8110 to 6-year follow-up n = 712
Diagnoses% (n)% (n)% (n)
 MDD63.2 (571)72.3 (586)77.1 (549)
 Dysthymia27.0 (244)33.5 (272)38.2 (272)
 Generalised anxiety disorder17.6 (159)27.1 (220)33.3 (237)
 Social phobia26.9 (243)32.6 (264)35.5 (253)
 Panic disorder22.4 (202)28.1 (228)32.2 (229)
 Agoraphobia21.3 (192)26.0 (211)28.2 (201)
 (Hypo)manic symptoms8.2 (74)10.0 (81)11.4 (81)
 Any other diagnoses (excluding MDD)60.5 (546)69.3 (562)74.2 (528)

aPatients with comorbid disorders appear in more than one diagnosis group

MDD major depressive disorder

Occurrence of diagnoses after baseline at follow-upa aPatients with comorbid disorders appear in more than one diagnosis group MDD major depressive disorder Further, over the 6 years of follow-up, a substantial proportion of patients spent more than 75% of the time with depressive (19.4%), anxious (18.7%) or avoidance (10.3%) symptoms, while this proportion was considerably lower for (hypo)mania symptoms (0.1%) (Table 3).
Table 3

Percentage of time spent with symptoms during follow-up

0–25% of time25–50% of time50–75% of time75–100% of time
Symptoms%%%%
Percentage of time with symptoms during 0 to 2-year follow-upa(n = 903)
 Depressive symptoms40.414.48.236.9
 Anxiety symptoms44.410.08.037.5
 Avoidance symptoms70.34.33.421.8
 (Hypo)manic symptoms98.10.30.21.3
Percentage of time with symptoms during 0 to 4-year follow-upa(n = 811)
 Depressive symptoms38.118.020.123.2
 Anxiety symptoms35.917.821.624.3
 Avoidance symptoms61.48.017.412.7
 (Hypo)manic symptoms97.81.20.60.4
Percentage of time with symptoms during 0 to 6-year follow-upa(n = 712)
 Depressive symptoms35.527.117.119.4
 Anxiety symptoms32.327.421.118.7
 Avoidance symptoms57.219.412.610.3
 (Hypo)manic symptoms97.61.70.60.1

aTime spent with symptoms regardless whether CIDI diagnoses present

Percentage of time spent with symptoms during follow-up aTime spent with symptoms regardless whether CIDI diagnoses present

The course of MDD

Figure 1 presents nine different pie charts showing the proportions of patients classified in the defined course trajectories for each of the three time points (columns) and each of the three diagnostic perspectives (rows).
Fig. 1

Pie charts of the course trajectories over 2-, 4- and 6-year follow-up for the different diagnostic categories

Pie charts of the course trajectories over 2-, 4- and 6-year follow-up for the different diagnostic categories

To what extent does follow-up period impact the course of MDD?

The first row of Fig. 1 shows that, at 2-year follow-up, 58% of the baseline MDD patients had recovered from MDD, while 21% had recurrent MDD episodes and a further 21% had a chronic MDD episode (Fig. 1a). However, examining Fig. 1b and c shows that sustained recovery rates dropped to 41% and 32% at 4- and 6-year follow-up, respectively. Moreover, 34% (28.9 + 4.6) of patients had chronic MDD episodes of at least 2-years duration at the 6-year follow-up (Fig. 1c). A similar decrease in recovery rates and increase in proportion of patients with chronic episodes is observed in the second (Fig. 1d–f) and third rows (Fig. 1g–i).

To what extent does a broader diagnostic conceptualisation impact the course of MDD?

Examining the first column of Fig. 1 reveals that full recovery rates at 2-year follow-up decreased from 58% when considering only MDD (Fig. 1a) to 53% when including dysthymia and (hypo)mania symptoms (Fig. 1d). Only 37% of the baseline MDD patients remained fully recovered when additionally considering comorbid anxiety (Fig. 1g). A similar pattern was observed at 4- (Fig. 1b, e, h) and 6-year follow-up (Fig. 1c, f, i).

To what extent does the combination of both follow-up and broader diagnostic conceptualisation impact the course of MDD?

Examining only MDD over 2 years (the shortest, most narrow perspective; Fig. 1a) suggests a relatively benign prognosis, wherein 58% of patients recovered from MDD and 21% had a chronic episode. However, employing a longer time frame (6 years) and broadening the conceptualisation of affective and anxiety disorders (including dysthymia, (hypo)mania and anxiety disorders) (longest, broadest perspective, Fig. 1i) suggest a much less favourable prognosis, with only 17% of patients having early and sustained recovery and over 55% (40.6 + 14.7) with chronic episodes (Fig. 1i). Additional file 1: Figure S1 showed that including only patients with complete data at all follow-up assessments (n = 712) did not change the above results as overall findings and percentages were very comparable.

Clinical validity of course trajectories

Figure 2 showed the raw mean disability (WHODAS-II) scores at baseline and at 2-, 4- and 6-year follow-up for the four course trajectories according to the long, broad perspective. Within all groups, the average disability was most severe at baseline, when all persons were in current episodes. GEE analysis adjusted for age, sex and years of education confirmed that, compared to those who recovered in the first 2 years and remained free of affective and anxiety disorder episodes until the 6-year follow-up, disability was consistently higher in patients with ‘recurrent without chronic episodes’ (B = 5.3, SE = 1.1, P < 0.001), in patients with ‘recurrent with chronic episodes’ (B = 14.1, SE = 1.0, P < 0.001) and in those with a ‘consistently chronic’ trajectory (B = 21.3, SE = 1.4, P < 0.001) over 6 years. This supports the clinical validity of the four course trajectories by indicating that the course groups not only differ in terms of symptoms but also in terms of general functioning.
Fig. 2

Mean disability scores (WHODAS) over time of the four course trajectories according to the longest, broadest perspective (6-year follow-up; all affective and anxiety disorders; Fig. 1i) (n = 712)

Mean disability scores (WHODAS) over time of the four course trajectories according to the longest, broadest perspective (6-year follow-up; all affective and anxiety disorders; Fig. 1i) (n = 712)

Discussion

This study tested the idea that the clinical course of patients with MDD may be underestimated when a narrow perspective is used with respect to either the time frame or the diagnostic conceptualisation. Considering a long and rigorous follow-up in a large cohort of patients with MDD reveals that we may need to reconsider our conceptualisation of MDD. Including symptoms of closely related disorders, such as (hypo)mania and anxiety symptoms, shows that the majority of patients have a disabling and chronic depressive disorder. Conceptualising MDD as a narrowly defined and episodic disorder may underestimate both the prognosis for the majority of our patients and, consequently, the type of care that is appropriate. With a short, narrow perspective (2-year follow-up and MDD only), 58% of patients appeared recovered and only a minority (21%) had a chronic episode. With a long, broad perspective (6-year follow-up, including affective and anxiety disorders) the recovery rate decreased to 17% and the proportion of patients with chronic episodes increased to 55%. The impact on the daily functioning was found to be parallel to the severity of the course trajectory. The current findings suggest that we may need to rethink the conceptualisation of depression from an episodic and isolated disorder to a recurrent and often chronic disorder with high levels of comorbidity. Since the nineteenth century, depression has been characterised in numerous ways. In 1883, Clouston was one of the first to describe melancholia with its symptoms [28]. This was further elaborated by Kraepelin [28, 29], who advocated more emphasis on prognosis, functional consequences or aetiology. Although DSM-5 [30] has become more sensitive to both the development of affective disorders over time and the inclusion of symptoms of co-occurring disorders, healthcare systems and treatment protocols generally still conceptualise MDD as relatively short-term and episodic. Moreover, lay people tend to view depression as an incident in response to life stress rather than a disorder that is often chronic [31]. Additionally, several studies on the prospective long-term course of depression in the general population and primary care describe high rates of stable recovery from depressive symptoms (35–60%) [15]. The current study, however, found that recovery rates were considerably lower when relevant co-morbidity is included. Consequently, this suggests that approaching depression as a recurrent, but mostly ‘time-limited’, episodic disorder may amount to an underestimation of its severity and clinical burden. We showed that only a minority of depressed patients experienced early and sustained recovery from all affective and anxiety conditions, while the majority experienced a pattern of recurrent and often chronic episodes. The long-term impact that such clinical courses have on a person’s level of functioning was confirmed by our clinical validation, where patients with chronic episodes had consistently higher disability levels compared to those without chronic episodes and those that recovered. Currently, psychiatric disorders are strictly categorised to limit overlap and increase specificity. However, in a recent review paper [32], Kendler showed that the large majority of descriptions of major depression up until the 1960s included anxiety as a symptom of depression. In line with this, our results suggest that depression and anxiety are not entirely separate constructs. The high levels of co-occurrence [13, 33], overlapping etiologies [10, 12] and similar treatments that are effective for depression and anxiety further support this. Our data suggest that including co-occurring anxiety yields a more valid, albeit less favourable, picture of the prognosis of depression. As in other areas in medicine, where the prognosis of disorders is often chronic, such as in rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes or chronic lung disorders, we may need to shift our attention more to the functional consequences of disorders when conceptualising the prognosis and testing interventions. Using the DSM-5 instrument for functioning, our data suggest that a broader and longer-term perspective of the prognosis of affective disorders is ecologically and clinically relevant. Our findings suggest that clinicians should consider interventions aimed at treating MDD as a chronic disorder and should more systematically incorporate relapse prevention strategies. Treatment should further focus on recovery from multiple symptom domains (including, for example, anxiety and hypomania) as well as functional recovery. Moreover, clinical trials should aim to include a representative and ecologically valid study sample [8]. Our study is unique in that we have access to a large cohort of patients representing the full range of depression and anxiety disorders. Patients were rigorously diagnosed and followed up over a longer period of time. Information was available throughout the 6-year follow-up period, allowing us to reliably categorise different course trajectories. However, some limitations of this study should also be noted. First, categorisation of the heterogeneous prognosis into four course trajectories inevitably results in arbitrary decisions for some cases, especially those with missing information on the life-chart. However, we showed that exclusion of those with missing information did not change the results substantially (Additional file 1: Figure S1). In our definition of the course trajectories, duration of (mild) symptomatology was not considered without the presence of a full diagnosis. Hence, this definition of the course trajectories might have underestimated the chronicity. Second, information on comorbidity was considered for a limited number of disorders. It would have been informative to further include symptomatology of other psychiatric disorders (e.g. obsessive compulsive disorder or substance use disorders) into account. This may even further impact on an unfavourable prognosis, but is beyond the focus of our current paper in which we decided on the most common affective and anxiety disorders that are closely linked with MDD in terms of overlap in etiology, symptomatology and treatment indications. Further, a subset of our sample was aged above 60 years (18.7% at 6-year follow-up) and consequently may have somatic morbidity, which could have attenuated the likelihood of sustained recovery. Third, it should be noted that the observational design of our study is not ideal to draw conclusions regarding treatment. This study does not address the impact of specific treatments on the prognosis of MDD. It would, naturally, be of great importance for future research to examine whether specific and carefully delivered treatment could impact outcomes more profoundly. Nevertheless, our results do show that, despite the fact that the mental healthcare system in the Netherlands is accessible, affordable and of good quality [34], outcomes are generally unfavourable. Fourth, the NESDA study commenced (2004) prior to the appearance of DSM-5, and therefore diagnoses in this paper reflect DSM-IV categories – of which some are no longer present in DSM-5 (e.g. dysthymia). Finally, during follow-up, there was selective loss of patients. Since those who are lost to follow-up are generally the worst affected cases, selective loss tends to decrease the number of cases that would be classified as chronic at later follow-up; therefore, our results might underestimate the severity of the course.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that we may need to reconsider the prognosis of patients with MDD. Including symptoms of closely related disorders, such as (hypo)mania and anxiety, shows that the majority of patients have a disabling and chronic affective disorder and that full recovery is the exception rather than the rule. Conceptualising MDD as a narrowly defined and episodic disorder may underestimate both the prognosis of the majority of our patients and the type of care that is appropriate.
  27 in total

1.  Disability in depression and back pain: evaluation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO DAS II) in a primary care setting.

Authors:  Lydia A Chwastiak; Michael Von Korff
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Depression and anxiety: their insidious dance.

Authors:  Brenda W J H Penninx
Journal:  Lancet Psychiatry       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 27.083

3.  An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties.

Authors:  A T Beck; N Epstein; G Brown; R A Steer
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  1988-12

Review 4.  Prevalence and clinical course of depression: a review.

Authors:  Derek Richards
Journal:  Clin Psychol Rev       Date:  2011-07-23

Review 5.  The Phenomenology of Major Depression and the Representativeness and Nature of DSM Criteria.

Authors:  Kenneth S Kendler
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 18.112

6.  The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA): rationale, objectives and methods.

Authors:  Brenda W J H Penninx; Aartjan T F Beekman; Johannes H Smit; Frans G Zitman; Willem A Nolen; Philip Spinhoven; Pim Cuijpers; Peter J De Jong; Harm W J Van Marwijk; Willem J J Assendelft; Klaas Van Der Meer; Peter Verhaak; Michel Wensing; Ron De Graaf; Witte J Hoogendijk; Johan Ormel; Richard Van Dyck
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.035

7.  Twenty-five-year course and outcome in anxiety and depression in the Upper Bavarian Longitudinal Community Study.

Authors:  M M Fichter; N Quadflieg; U C Fischer; G Kohlboeck
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand       Date:  2009-11-18       Impact factor: 6.392

8.  Can phase III trial results of antidepressant medications be generalized to clinical practice? A STAR*D report.

Authors:  Stephen R Wisniewski; A John Rush; Andrew A Nierenberg; Bradley N Gaynes; Diane Warden; James F Luther; Patrick J McGrath; Philip W Lavori; Michael E Thase; Maurizio Fava; Madhukar H Trivedi
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 18.112

9.  The Depression Schema: How Labels, Features, and Causal Explanations Affect Lay Conceptions of Depression.

Authors:  Paul H Thibodeau; Mira J Fein; Elizabeth S Goodbody; Stephen J Flusberg
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-11-17

10.  Genetic relationship between five psychiatric disorders estimated from genome-wide SNPs.

Authors:  S Hong Lee; Stephan Ripke; Benjamin M Neale; Stephen V Faraone; Shaun M Purcell; Roy H Perlis; Bryan J Mowry; Anita Thapar; Michael E Goddard; John S Witte; Devin Absher; Ingrid Agartz; Huda Akil; Farooq Amin; Ole A Andreassen; Adebayo Anjorin; Richard Anney; Verneri Anttila; Dan E Arking; Philip Asherson; Maria H Azevedo; Lena Backlund; Judith A Badner; Anthony J Bailey; Tobias Banaschewski; Jack D Barchas; Michael R Barnes; Thomas B Barrett; Nicholas Bass; Agatino Battaglia; Michael Bauer; Mònica Bayés; Frank Bellivier; Sarah E Bergen; Wade Berrettini; Catalina Betancur; Thomas Bettecken; Joseph Biederman; Elisabeth B Binder; Donald W Black; Douglas H R Blackwood; Cinnamon S Bloss; Michael Boehnke; Dorret I Boomsma; Gerome Breen; René Breuer; Richard Bruggeman; Paul Cormican; Nancy G Buccola; Jan K Buitelaar; William E Bunney; Joseph D Buxbaum; William F Byerley; Enda M Byrne; Sian Caesar; Wiepke Cahn; Rita M Cantor; Miguel Casas; Aravinda Chakravarti; Kimberly Chambert; Khalid Choudhury; Sven Cichon; C Robert Cloninger; David A Collier; Edwin H Cook; Hilary Coon; Bru Cormand; Aiden Corvin; William H Coryell; David W Craig; Ian W Craig; Jennifer Crosbie; Michael L Cuccaro; David Curtis; Darina Czamara; Susmita Datta; Geraldine Dawson; Richard Day; Eco J De Geus; Franziska Degenhardt; Srdjan Djurovic; Gary J Donohoe; Alysa E Doyle; Jubao Duan; Frank Dudbridge; Eftichia Duketis; Richard P Ebstein; Howard J Edenberg; Josephine Elia; Sean Ennis; Bruno Etain; Ayman Fanous; Anne E Farmer; I Nicol Ferrier; Matthew Flickinger; Eric Fombonne; Tatiana Foroud; Josef Frank; Barbara Franke; Christine Fraser; Robert Freedman; Nelson B Freimer; Christine M Freitag; Marion Friedl; Louise Frisén; Louise Gallagher; Pablo V Gejman; Lyudmila Georgieva; Elliot S Gershon; Daniel H Geschwind; Ina Giegling; Michael Gill; Scott D Gordon; Katherine Gordon-Smith; Elaine K Green; Tiffany A Greenwood; Dorothy E Grice; Magdalena Gross; Detelina Grozeva; Weihua Guan; Hugh Gurling; Lieuwe De Haan; Jonathan L Haines; Hakon Hakonarson; Joachim Hallmayer; Steven P Hamilton; Marian L Hamshere; Thomas F Hansen; Annette M Hartmann; Martin Hautzinger; Andrew C Heath; Anjali K Henders; Stefan Herms; Ian B Hickie; Maria Hipolito; Susanne Hoefels; Peter A Holmans; Florian Holsboer; Witte J Hoogendijk; Jouke-Jan Hottenga; Christina M Hultman; Vanessa Hus; Andrés Ingason; Marcus Ising; Stéphane Jamain; Edward G Jones; Ian Jones; Lisa Jones; Jung-Ying Tzeng; Anna K Kähler; René S Kahn; Radhika Kandaswamy; Matthew C Keller; James L Kennedy; Elaine Kenny; Lindsey Kent; Yunjung Kim; George K Kirov; Sabine M Klauck; Lambertus Klei; James A Knowles; Martin A Kohli; Daniel L Koller; Bettina Konte; Ania Korszun; Lydia Krabbendam; Robert Krasucki; Jonna Kuntsi; Phoenix Kwan; Mikael Landén; Niklas Långström; Mark Lathrop; Jacob Lawrence; William B Lawson; Marion Leboyer; David H Ledbetter; Phil H Lee; Todd Lencz; Klaus-Peter Lesch; Douglas F Levinson; Cathryn M Lewis; Jun Li; Paul Lichtenstein; Jeffrey A Lieberman; Dan-Yu Lin; Don H Linszen; Chunyu Liu; Falk W Lohoff; Sandra K Loo; Catherine Lord; Jennifer K Lowe; Susanne Lucae; Donald J MacIntyre; Pamela A F Madden; Elena Maestrini; Patrik K E Magnusson; Pamela B Mahon; Wolfgang Maier; Anil K Malhotra; Shrikant M Mane; Christa L Martin; Nicholas G Martin; Manuel Mattheisen; Keith Matthews; Morten Mattingsdal; Steven A McCarroll; Kevin A McGhee; James J McGough; Patrick J McGrath; Peter McGuffin; Melvin G McInnis; Andrew McIntosh; Rebecca McKinney; Alan W McLean; Francis J McMahon; William M McMahon; Andrew McQuillin; Helena Medeiros; Sarah E Medland; Sandra Meier; Ingrid Melle; Fan Meng; Jobst Meyer; Christel M Middeldorp; Lefkos Middleton; Vihra Milanova; Ana Miranda; Anthony P Monaco; Grant W Montgomery; Jennifer L Moran; Daniel Moreno-De-Luca; Gunnar Morken; Derek W Morris; Eric M Morrow; Valentina Moskvina; Pierandrea Muglia; Thomas W Mühleisen; Walter J Muir; Bertram Müller-Myhsok; Michael Murtha; Richard M Myers; Inez Myin-Germeys; Michael C Neale; Stan F Nelson; Caroline M Nievergelt; Ivan Nikolov; Vishwajit Nimgaonkar; Willem A Nolen; Markus M Nöthen; John I Nurnberger; Evaristus A Nwulia; Dale R Nyholt; Colm O'Dushlaine; Robert D Oades; Ann Olincy; Guiomar Oliveira; Line Olsen; Roel A Ophoff; Urban Osby; Michael J Owen; Aarno Palotie; Jeremy R Parr; Andrew D Paterson; Carlos N Pato; Michele T Pato; Brenda W Penninx; Michele L Pergadia; Margaret A Pericak-Vance; Benjamin S Pickard; Jonathan Pimm; Joseph Piven; Danielle Posthuma; James B Potash; Fritz Poustka; Peter Propping; Vinay Puri; Digby J Quested; Emma M Quinn; Josep Antoni Ramos-Quiroga; Henrik B Rasmussen; Soumya Raychaudhuri; Karola Rehnström; Andreas Reif; Marta Ribasés; John P Rice; Marcella Rietschel; Kathryn Roeder; Herbert Roeyers; Lizzy Rossin; Aribert Rothenberger; Guy Rouleau; Douglas Ruderfer; Dan Rujescu; Alan R Sanders; Stephan J Sanders; Susan L Santangelo; Joseph A Sergeant; Russell Schachar; Martin Schalling; Alan F Schatzberg; William A Scheftner; Gerard D Schellenberg; Stephen W Scherer; Nicholas J Schork; Thomas G Schulze; Johannes Schumacher; Markus Schwarz; Edward Scolnick; Laura J Scott; Jianxin Shi; Paul D Shilling; Stanley I Shyn; Jeremy M Silverman; Susan L Slager; Susan L Smalley; Johannes H Smit; Erin N Smith; Edmund J S Sonuga-Barke; David St Clair; Matthew State; Michael Steffens; Hans-Christoph Steinhausen; John S Strauss; Jana Strohmaier; T Scott Stroup; James S Sutcliffe; Peter Szatmari; Szabocls Szelinger; Srinivasa Thirumalai; Robert C Thompson; Alexandre A Todorov; Federica Tozzi; Jens Treutlein; Manfred Uhr; Edwin J C G van den Oord; Gerard Van Grootheest; Jim Van Os; Astrid M Vicente; Veronica J Vieland; John B Vincent; Peter M Visscher; Christopher A Walsh; Thomas H Wassink; Stanley J Watson; Myrna M Weissman; Thomas Werge; Thomas F Wienker; Ellen M Wijsman; Gonneke Willemsen; Nigel Williams; A Jeremy Willsey; Stephanie H Witt; Wei Xu; Allan H Young; Timothy W Yu; Stanley Zammit; Peter P Zandi; Peng Zhang; Frans G Zitman; Sebastian Zöllner; Bernie Devlin; John R Kelsoe; Pamela Sklar; Mark J Daly; Michael C O'Donovan; Nicholas Craddock; Patrick F Sullivan; Jordan W Smoller; Kenneth S Kendler; Naomi R Wray
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2013-08-11       Impact factor: 38.330

View more
  16 in total

1.  Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on relevant treatment outcomes in depression: qualitative study.

Authors:  Kaying Kan; Frederike Jörg; Erik Buskens; Robert A Schoevers; Manna A Alma
Journal:  BJPsych Open       Date:  2020-05-04

2.  The GET READY relapse prevention programme for anxiety and depression: a mixed-methods study protocol.

Authors:  Esther Krijnen-de Bruin; Anna D T Muntingh; Adriaan W Hoogendoorn; Annemieke van Straten; Neeltje M Batelaan; Otto R Maarsingh; Anton J L M van Balkom; Berno van Meijel
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 3.630

3.  Remote assessment of disease and relapse in major depressive disorder (RADAR-MDD): a multi-centre prospective cohort study protocol.

Authors:  F Matcham; C Barattieri di San Pietro; V Bulgari; G de Girolamo; R Dobson; H Eriksson; A A Folarin; J M Haro; M Kerz; F Lamers; Q Li; N V Manyakov; D C Mohr; I Myin-Germeys; V Narayan; Penninx Bwjh; Y Ranjan; Z Rashid; A Rintala; S Siddi; S K Simblett; T Wykes; M Hotopf
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2019-02-18       Impact factor: 3.630

4.  Temporal relationships between happiness and psychiatric disorders and their symptom severity in a large cohort study: the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA).

Authors:  Philip Spinhoven; Bernet M Elzinga; Brenda W J H Penninx; Erik J Giltay
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 3.630

5.  Self-Criticism and Personality Functioning Predict Patterns of Symptom Change in Major Depressive Disorder.

Authors:  Almut Zeeck; Jörn von Wietersheim; Heinz Weiss; Sabine Hermann; Katharina Endorf; Inga Lau; Armin Hartmann
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 4.157

6.  The impact of depression and anxiety treatment on biological aging and metabolic stress: study protocol of the MOod treatment with antidepressants or running (MOTAR) study.

Authors:  Bianca A Lever-van Milligen; Josine E Verhoeven; Lianne Schmaal; Laura S van Velzen; Dóra Révész; Catherine N Black; Laura K M Han; Melany Horsfall; Neeltje M Batelaan; Anton J L M van Balkom; Digna J F van Schaik; Patricia van Oppen; Brenda W J H Penninx
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 3.630

7.  Types of Utilization and Types of Treatment Response in a Collaborative Care Approach for Depressive Disorders in Old Age in Primary Care.

Authors:  Thomas Kloppe; Nadine Janis Pohontsch; Martin Scherer
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 4.157

8.  Functional Disability in Patients with Mood Disorders at St Paul's Hospital Psychiatry Clinic, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2019.

Authors:  Elias Tesfaye; Chalachew Kassaw; Liyew Agenagnew
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2021-06-14

9.  Affect fluctuations examined with ecological momentary assessment in patients with current or remitted depression and anxiety disorders.

Authors:  R A Schoevers; C D van Borkulo; F Lamers; M N Servaas; J A Bastiaansen; A T F Beekman; A M van Hemert; J H Smit; B W J H Penninx; H Riese
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 7.723

10.  Predicting the naturalistic course in anxiety disorders using clinical and biological markers: a machine learning approach.

Authors:  Wicher A Bokma; Paul Zhutovsky; Erik J Giltay; Robert A Schoevers; Brenda W J H Penninx; Anton L J M van Balkom; Neeltje M Batelaan; Guido A van Wingen
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 7.723

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.