Andreas Schmitt1,2, Bernhard Kulzer1,2,3, André Reimer1, Christian Herder2,4,5, Michael Roden2,4,5, Thomas Haak1, Norbert Hermanns1,2,3. 1. Research Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim, Diabetes Center Mergentheim, Bad Mergentheim, Germany. 2. German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), Muenchen-Neuherberg, Germany. 3. Department for Psychology, Otto-Friedrich-University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany. 4. Department of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Duesseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany. 5. Institute for Clinical Diabetology, German Diabetes Center, Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Depression is a common and serious complication of diabetes. Treatment approaches addressing the specific demands of affected patients are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to test whether a stepped care approach for patients with diabetes and depression and/or diabetes distress yields greater depression reduction than treatment-as-usual. METHODS: Two-hundred and sixty patients with diabetes and elevated depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥16) and/or elevated diabetes distress (PAID ≥40) were randomized to stepped care for depression or diabetes treatment-as-usual. The primary outcome was the rate of meaningful depression reduction at the 12-month follow-up according to the HAMD (score <9 or reduction by ≥50%). Secondary outcomes were changes in depression scores (HAMD/CES-D), diabetes distress (PAID), diabetes acceptance (AADQ), well-being (WHO-5), quality of life (EQ-5D/SF-36), self-care behavior (SDSCA/DSMQ), HbA1c, and biomarkers of inflammation. RESULTS: One-hundred and thirty-one individuals were assigned to stepped care and 129 to treatment-as-usual. Overall, 15.4% were lost to follow-up. Meaningful depression reduction was observed in 80.2 versus 51.2% in stepped care versus treatment-as-usual (p < 0.001, intention-to-treat analysis). Of the secondary measures, the HAMD (∆ -3.2, p < 0.001), WHO-5 (∆ 1.5, p = 0.007), and AADQ (∆ -1.0, p = 0.008) displayed significant treatment effects, while effects on CES-D (∆ -2.3, p = 0.065), PAID (∆ -3.5, p = 0.109), and SDSCA (∆ 0.20, p = 0.081) were not significantly different. Both groups showed comparable changes in EQ-5D/SF-36, DSMQ, HbA1c, and biomarkers of inflammation (all p ≥ 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: The stepped care approach improved depression, well-being, and acceptance. The results support that increasing treatment intensity on demand is effective and can help provide more optimal treatment. The inclusion of diabetes-specific interventions may be beneficial for patients with diabetes and elevated depression.
INTRODUCTION: Depression is a common and serious complication of diabetes. Treatment approaches addressing the specific demands of affected patients are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to test whether a stepped care approach for patients with diabetes and depression and/or diabetes distress yields greater depression reduction than treatment-as-usual. METHODS: Two-hundred and sixty patients with diabetes and elevated depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥16) and/or elevated diabetes distress (PAID ≥40) were randomized to stepped care for depression or diabetes treatment-as-usual. The primary outcome was the rate of meaningful depression reduction at the 12-month follow-up according to the HAMD (score <9 or reduction by ≥50%). Secondary outcomes were changes in depression scores (HAMD/CES-D), diabetes distress (PAID), diabetes acceptance (AADQ), well-being (WHO-5), quality of life (EQ-5D/SF-36), self-care behavior (SDSCA/DSMQ), HbA1c, and biomarkers of inflammation. RESULTS: One-hundred and thirty-one individuals were assigned to stepped care and 129 to treatment-as-usual. Overall, 15.4% were lost to follow-up. Meaningful depression reduction was observed in 80.2 versus 51.2% in stepped care versus treatment-as-usual (p < 0.001, intention-to-treat analysis). Of the secondary measures, the HAMD (∆ -3.2, p < 0.001), WHO-5 (∆ 1.5, p = 0.007), and AADQ (∆ -1.0, p = 0.008) displayed significant treatment effects, while effects on CES-D (∆ -2.3, p = 0.065), PAID (∆ -3.5, p = 0.109), and SDSCA (∆ 0.20, p = 0.081) were not significantly different. Both groups showed comparable changes in EQ-5D/SF-36, DSMQ, HbA1c, and biomarkers of inflammation (all p ≥ 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: The stepped care approach improved depression, well-being, and acceptance. The results support that increasing treatment intensity on demand is effective and can help provide more optimal treatment. The inclusion of diabetes-specific interventions may be beneficial for patients with diabetes and elevated depression.