Depression and the pitfalls of causality: implications for DSM-V

Psychological Treatment for Depressive Disorder

Depression is highly prevalent and causes unnecessary human suffering and economic loss. Therefore, its treatment and prevention are of utmost importance. There are several advantages of using psychotherapy either by itself or combined with pharmacological treatment methods in the treatment of depression. First, it is well known that combining biological treatment with psychosocial methods increases the chances of recovery. Second, in some individuals, psychotherapy continues to be the only solution. Third, the use of antidepressants contains some safety risks and side effects, but psychotherapy does not. Fourth, clinically, depressive patients prefer psychotherapy to drug therapy. Use of a depression-focused psychotherapy alone is recommended as an initial treatment choice for patients with mild to moderate depression, with clinical evidence supporting the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), psychodynamic psychotherapy (PDP), and problem-solving therapy (PST) in individual and group formats. Important developments took place within the past 20 years in the psychotherapy of depression. In the present chapter, we introduced several key issues, such as, Are all psychotherapies equally effective? Who benefits from psychotherapies? Is telepsychotherapy effective? Finally, we introduce the psychotherapy for special populations.

Physical activity and exercise attenuate neuroinflammation in neurological diseases

Major depressive disorder (MDD), schizophrenia (SCH), Alzheimer's disease (AD), and Parkinson's disease (PD) are devastating neurological disorders, which increasingly contribute to global morbidity and mortality. Although the pathogenic mechanisms of these conditions are quite diverse, chronic neuroinflammation is one underlying feature shared by all these diseases. Even though the specific root causes of these diseases remain to be identified, evidence indicates that the observed neuroinflammation is initiated by unique pathological features associated with each specific disease. If the initial acute inflammation is not resolved, a chronic neuroinflammatory state develops and ultimately contributes to disease progression. Chronic neuroinflammation is characterized by adverse and non-specific activation of glial cells, which can lead to collateral damage of nearby neurons and other glia. This misdirected neuroinflammatory response is hypothesized to contribute to neuropathology in MDD, SCH, AD, and PD. Physical activity (PA), which is critical for maintenance of whole body and brain health, may also beneficially modify neuroimmune responses. Since PA has neuroimmune-modifying properties, and the common underlying feature of MDD, SCH, AD, and PD is chronic neuroinflammation, we hypothesize that PA could minimize brain diseases by modifying glia-mediated neuroinflammation. This review highlights current evidence supporting the disease-altering potential of PA and exercise through modifications of neuroimmune responses, specifically in MDD, SCH, AD and PD.

Bereavement-related depression: Did the changes induced by DSM-V make a difference? Results from a large population-based survey of French residents

BACKGROUND

DSM-V has been criticized for excessively expanding criteria for bereavement-related depression. The aim of this study was to quantify a potential increase in depression prevalence due to changes in diagnostic criteria and to assess the severity, clinical profile and healthcare use of new cases.

METHODS

A cross-sectional telephone survey was performed in 2005-2006 in four French regions. Twelve-month prevalence of psychiatric disorders was measured by CIDI-SF. Bereavement was assessed in those who endorsed the gate question to the depression module. Persons with bereavement-related depression according to DSM-IV and DSM-V diagnosis criteria were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 22,138 respondents, 692 were bereaved. The prevalence of depression among those bereaved was 49.9% (95% CI ¼=43.7−56.0) according to DSM-IV and 59.6% (53.1−66.1) according to DSM-V [corrected]. The overall prevalence of major depression increased from 8.6% (8.1–9.1) with DSM-IV to 8.8% (8.3−9.3) with DSM-V . Cases diagnosed using DSM-IV presented more symptoms than cases diagnosed using DSM-V but clinical features were similar except regarding criterion E׳s symptoms. Healthcare use was similar between the two groups regarding consultations and psychotropic drug prescription.

LIMITATIONS

Some DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria were difficult to operationalize in the survey. The observed difference in prevalence according to DSM-IV and DSM-V may be reduced when clinical judgment is taken into account.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall prevalence of major depression is only marginally increased by the new criteria. However, diagnostic changes increase the prevalence by 10 points among those bereaved. Diagnostic changes do not appear to modify service use.

The removal of the bereavement exclusion in the DSM-5: exploring the evidence

Since 1980, the DSM-III and its various iterations through the DSM-IV-TR have systematically excluded individuals from the diagnosis of major depressive disorder if symptoms began within months after the death of a loved one (2 months in DSM-IV), unless the depressive syndrome was 'severely' impairing and/or accompanied by specific features. This criterion became known as the 'bereavement exclusion'. No other adverse life events were noted to negate the diagnosis of major depressive disorder if all other symptomatic, duration, severity and distress/impairment criteria were met. However, studies since the inception of the bereavement exclusion have shown that depressive syndromes occurring after bereavement share many of the same features as other, non-bereavement related depressions, tend to be chronic and/or recurrent if left untreated, interfere with the resolution of grief, and respond to treatment. Furthermore, the bereavement exclusion has had the unintended consequence of suggesting that grief should end in only 2 months, or that grief and major depressive disorder cannot co-occur. To prevent the denial of diagnosis and the consideration of sometimes much needed care, even after bereavement or other significant losses, the DSM-5 no longer contains the bereavement exclusion. Instead, the DSM-5 now permits the diagnosis of major depressive disorder after and during bereavement and includes a note and a comprehensive footnote in the major depressive episode criteria set to guide clinicians in making the diagnosis in this context. The decision to make this change was widely and publically debated and remains controversial. This article reports on the rationale for this decision and the way the DSM-5 now addresses the challenges of diagnosing major depressive disorder in the context of someone grieving the loss of a loved one.

Distinguishing Bereavement from Depression in DSM-5: Evidence from Longitudinal Epidemiologic Surveys

Following the earlier versions of the diagnostic manual, the DSM-IV set a higher symptom and duration threshold for the diagnosis of major depression in individuals who have experienced recent bereavement-the bereavement exclusion criterion. This criterion excludes a diagnosis of major depression among those whose symptoms persist for less than two months, as long as they do not have marked functional impairment, morbid preoccupation with worthlessness, suicidal ideation, psychotic symptoms, or psychomotor retardation. The DSM-5 committee, however, has proposed to remove this criterion from the upcoming DSM-5. The committee's decision was based on reviews of past literature. However, few past studies directly compared DSM-excluded bereavement-related depression to other major depressive disorder in representative population samples and had adequate power to detect differences. The results of these studies, therefore, did not provide strong evidence for the validity of bereavement exclusion. In this paper, we review three recently published analyses based on large epidemiologic samples that found significant differences between those with bereavement-excluded episodes and episodes meeting major depression criteria with regard to short-term risk of future depressive episodes, psychiatric comorbidity and other clinical and socio-demographic characteristics. In follow-ups ranging from 1 to 3 years, individuals with bereavement-excluded depressive episodes were significantly less likely to experience new episodes than those who met criteria for depression, and were not more likely to experience future episodes than those without any past history of depression. The findings from these new studies support the validity of the DSM-IV bereavement exclusion criterion and argue for preserving it in the new edition of the manual.

Normal vs. disordered bereavement-related depression: are the differences real or tautological?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the DSM distinction between uncomplicated (normal) and complicated (disordered) bereavement-related depression (BRD) has discriminant validity on a range of pathology indicators. The DSM's major depression bereavement exclusion (BE) excludes BRDs from diagnosis when they are uncomplicated (defined by brief duration, non-severe impairment, and lack of certain pathosuggestive symptoms) but classifies all other ("complicated") BRDs as major depression. A previous report seemed to support the uncomplicated/complicated distinction's discriminant validity. However, those arguing for eliminating the BE from DSM-5 dismiss the findings as 'tautological,' attributing the validator differences to definitional biases (e.g. 'uncomplicated' requires 'no suicidal ideation,' yet 'lifetime suicide attempt' was a validator). This study empirically tests whether the uncomplicated/complicated differences are real or tautological.

METHOD

Using National Comorbidity Survey data, confounds between definitional criteria for 'uncomplicated' and pathology validators were identified and corrected by deleting the biasing criteria and recalculating the corresponding validator's outcome.

RESULTS

Six validators (interference with life, suicide attempt, melancholic depression, duration, hospitalization, and number of symptoms) were reanalyzed using unbiased definitions for 'uncomplicated.' All still yielded significantly lower pathology levels for uncomplicated BRDs, disconfirming the 'tautology' hypothesis. Regression analysis revealed that 'uncomplicated' offered incremental validity over severity alone in predicting pathology, so 'uncomplicated' cannot be equated with 'mild.'

CONCLUSION

Uncomplicated BRDs' lower pathology validator levels are because of real syndromal differences, not definitional tautologies, supporting the BE's validity.

Validity and clinical utility of the current operational characterization of major depression

The operational definition of major depression has remained more or less the same in the past 40 years. An appraisal of currently available research data leads to the conclusion that further evidence is needed about (1) where to fix the boundary between cases and non-cases in order to improve the clinical utility of the diagnosis, (2) the validity and clinical utility of the construct of melancholia as a qualitatively distinct subtype of depression, and (3) the validity and clinical utility of a 'contextual' exclusion criterion. Furthermore, we need a more precise description of individual depressive symptoms, an exploration of the predictive value of these symptoms and of clusters of them, especially concerning clinical outcome and treatment response, and a clearer operationalization of the impairment criterion.

Mental illness and mental health: is the glass half empty or half full?

During the past century, the scope of mental health intervention in North America has gradually expanded from an initial focus on hospitalized patients with psychoses to outpatients with neurotic disorders, including the so-called worried well. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), Fifth Edition, is further embracing the concept of a mental illness spectrum, such that increasing attention to the softer end of the continuum can be expected in the future. This anticipated shift rekindles important questions about how mental illness is defined, how to distinguish between mental disorders and normal reactions, whether psychiatry is guilty of prevalence inflation, and when somatic therapies should be used to treat problems of living. Such debates are aptly illustrated by the example of complicated bereavement, which is best characterized as a form of adjustment disorder. Achieving an overarching definition of mental illness is challenging, owing to the many different contexts in which DSM diagnoses are used. Careful analyses of such contextual utility must inform future decisions about what ends up in DSM, as well as how mental illness is defined by public health policy and society at large. A viable vision for the future of psychiatry should include a spectrum model of mental health (as opposed to exclusively mental illness) that incorporates graded, evidence-based interventions delivered by a range of providers at each point along its continuum.

Meta-review of depressive subtyping models

BACKGROUND

Increasing dissatisfaction with the non-specificity of major depression has led many to propose more specific depressive subtyping models. The present meta-review seeks to map dominant depressive subtype models, and highlight definitions and overlaps.

METHODS

A database search in Medline and EMBASE of proposed depressive subtypes, and limited to reviews published between 2000 and 2011, was undertaken. Of the more than four thousand reviews, 754 were judged as potentially relevant and provided the base for the present selective meta-review.

RESULTS

Fifteen subtype models were identified. The subtypes could be divided into five molar categories of (1) symptom-based subtypes, such as melancholia, psychotic depression, atypical depression and anxious depression, (2) aetiologically-based subtypes, exemplified by adjustment disorders, early trauma depression, reproductive depression, perinatal depression, organic depression and drug-induced depression, (3) time of onset-based subtypes, as illustrated by early and late onset depression, as well as seasonal affective disorder, (4) gender-based (e.g. female) depression, and (5) treatment resistant depression. An overview considering definition, bio-psycho-social correlates and the evidence base of treatment options for each subtype is provided.

LIMITATIONS

Despite the large data base, this meta-review is nevertheless narrative focused.

CONCLUSIONS

Subtyping depression is a promising attempt to overcome the non-specificity of many diagnostic constructs such as major depression, both in relation to their intrinsic non-specificity and failure to provide treatment-specific information. If a subtyping model is to be advanced it would need, however, to demonstrate differential impacts of causes and treatments.

Recurrence of depression after bereavement-related depression: evidence for the validity of DSM-IV bereavement exclusion from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study

The DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder exclude bereavement-related depressive episodes that are brief and lack certain severe symptoms and are thus better explained as normal grief responses. However, the DSM-5 Task Force proposes to eliminate this exclusion because of a lack of evidence that such episodes differ relevantly from standard major depression. Using the two-wave longitudinal Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study, we compared 1-yr depression recurrence rates at wave 2 of four groups at wave 1 baseline: (1) those with no history of depressive disorder (n = 18,239), (2) those who had only lifetime excludable bereavement-related depression (n = 25), (3) those with brief-episode (≤ 2 months duration) lifetime standard depressive disorder (n = 446), and (4) those with nonbrief lifetime standard depressive disorder (n = 581). The recurrence rate in the excludable-depression group (3.7%) was not significantly different from the no-history group (1.7%) but was significantly and substantially lower than in the brief and nonbrief standard depression groups (14.4% and 16.2%, respectively). These findings confirm findings reported by Mojtabai (Arch Gen Psychiatry 68:920-928, 2011) using a different data set and time frame and thus substantially strengthen the support for the validity of bereavement exclusion and for its preservation in the DSM-5.

Do clinical psychologists extend the bereavement exclusion for major depression to other stressful life events?

BACKGROUND

In assessing potential cases of major depressive disorder (MDD), to what extent do clinicians interpret symptoms within the explanatory context of major life stressors? Past research suggests that when clinicians know a plausible life event cause for a person's disordered symptoms, they generally judge that person to be less abnormal than if the cause was unknown. However, the current, fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders specifies that only bereavement-related life events exclude a client from a diagnosis of MDD, and the upcoming fifth edition of the manual (DSM-V) is currently slated to eliminate this bereavement clause altogether.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically examine whether clinicians' judgments reflect agreement with either of these formal DSM specifications.

METHOD

In a controlled experiment, 72 practicing, licensed clinical psychologists made judgments about realistic MDD vignettes that included a bereavement event, stressful non-bereavement event, neutral event, or no event.

RESULTS

Bonferroni-corrected paired comparisons revealed that both bereavement and non-bereavement life events led MDD symptoms to be rated as significantly less indicative of a depression diagnosis, less abnormal, less rare, and less culturally unacceptable (all P ≤ 0.001) relative to control conditions.

LIMITATIONS

Clinicians made judgments of realistic, controlled vignettes rather than patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that practicing clinical psychologists assess symptoms within the explanatory context of bereavement and non-bereavement life stressors, indicating a departure from the DSM's recommendations, both current and proposed.

IMPLICATIONS

for diagnostic decision making and the clinical utility of the DSM's recommendations are discussed.

DSM-5: proposed changes to depressive disorders

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is currently undergoing a revision that will lead to a fifth edition in 2013. Proposed changes for DSM-5 include the creation of several new categories of depressive disorder. Some nosologists have expressed concern that the proposed changes could yield many 'false-positive diagnoses' in which normal distress is mislabeled as a mental disorder. Such confusion of normal distress and mental disorder undermines the interpretability of clinical trials and etiological research, causes inefficient allocation of resources, and incurs risks of unnecessary treatment. To evaluate these concerns, I critically examine five proposed DSM-5 expansions in the scope of depressive and grief disorders: (1) a new mixed anxiety/depression category; (2) a new premenstrual dysphoric disorder category; (3) elimination of the major depression bereavement exclusion; (4) elimination of the adjustment disorder bereavement exclusion, thus allowing the diagnosis of subsyndromal depressive symptoms during bereavement as adjustment disorders; and (5) a new category of adjustment disorder related to bereavement for diagnosing pathological non-depressive grief. I examine each proposal's face validity and conceptual coherence as well as empirical support where relevant, with special attention to potential implications for false-positive diagnoses. I conclude that mixed anxiety/depression and premenstrual dysphoric disorder are needed categories, but are too broadly drawn and will yield substantial false positives; that the elimination of the bereavement exclusion is not supported by the evidence; and that the proposed elimination of the adjustment-disorder bereavement exclusion, as well as the new category of grief-related adjustment disorder, are inconsistent with recent grief research, which suggests that these proposals would massively pathologize normal grief responses.

Validity of the bereavement exclusion to major depression: does the empirical evidence support the proposal to eliminate the exclusion in DSM-5?

The DSM-IV major depression "bereavement exclusion" (BE), which recognizes that depressive symptoms are sometimes normal in recently bereaved individuals, is proposed for elimination in DSM-5. Evidence cited for the BE's invalidity comes from two 2007 reviews purporting to show that bereavement-related depression is similar to other depression across various validators, and a 2010 review of subsequent research. We examined whether the 2007 and 2010 reviews and subsequent relevant literature support the BE's invalidity. Findings were: a) studies included in the 2007 reviews sampled bereavement-related depression groups most of whom were not BE-excluded, making them irrelevant for evaluating BE validity; b) three subsequent studies cited by the 2010 review as supporting BE elimination did examine BE-excluded cases but were in fact inconclusive; and c) two more recent articles comparing recurrence of BE-excluded and other major depressive disorder cases both support the BE's validity. We conclude that the claimed evidence for the BE's invalidity does not exist. The evidence in fact supports the BE's validity and its retention in DSM-5 to prevent false positive diagnoses. We suggest some improvements to increase validity and mitigate risk of false negatives.

Bereavement and the diagnosis of major depressive episode in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions

OBJECTIVE

Bereavement-related depression is excluded from a diagnosis of major depressive episode (MDE) in DSM-IV, unless the syndrome is prolonged or complicated. The objective of this study is to assess the validity of the bereavement exclusion by comparing characteristics of bereavement-related episodes that are excluded from a diagnosis and bereavement-related episodes that qualify for a diagnosis (complicated bereavement) to MDE.

METHOD

We used data from 2 waves of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (n = 43,093) to compare bereavement-excluded depression and complicated bereavement to MDE with respect to indicators of preexisting risk for psychopathology (antecedent indicators) and indicators of disorder severity measured at baseline and at the study's 3-year follow-up interview (consequent indicators). The primary outcome measure was the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-IV.

RESULTS

Compared to individuals with MDE, individuals with bereavement-excluded depression had lower risks of preexisting psychiatric disorders (eg, 0.44 lower odds of social phobia, P = .006), fewer depressive episodes (recurrence rate 0.37 times lower, P < .001), less psychosocial impairment (P < .001), a 0.18 times lower odds of seeking treatment (P < .001), and a lower risk of psychiatric disorders during a 3-year follow-up period. Unexpectedly, this same pattern of differences was observed between individuals with complicated bereavement and MDE.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the presence of a clinically significant depressive episode, bereavement-excluded depression is in many ways less indicative of psychopathology than MDE. However, complicated bereavement was more similar to bereavement-excluded depression than to MDE. We therefore question whether the DSM-IV criteria validly distinguish between nondisordered loss reactions (bereavement-excluded depression), pathological loss reactions (complicated bereavement), and nonloss-related MDE.

Relation between duration and severity in bereavement-related depression

OBJECTIVE

Prolonged duration is commonly used as an indicator that bereavement-related depression (BRD) is pathological. DSM-IV replaced the traditional 1-year pathology cut-point by a 2-month cut-point. Yet, little evidence exists regarding the validity of these cut-points in indicating increased BRD severity. This study evaluated the validity of the 2-month and 1-year cut-points in differentiating less severe from more severe BRDs in a nationally representative U.S. sample.

METHOD

National Comorbidity Survey respondents with BRD's (n = 152) lasting 0-8, 9-52 and >52 weeks were evaluated for depression severity using six severity indicators. Cut-point validity was established by discontinuities in severity levels between durations below and above the cut-point.

RESULTS

Bereavement-related depressions of >52-week duration were significantly higher than 9- to 52-week BRDs on four of six severity indicators and on a cumulative overall severity measure of mean number of severity indicators per person, whereas ≤8-week and 9- to 52-week durational categories differed on one severity indicator and not on overall severity. Additional analyses using durations 0-12, 13-26, 27-52 and >52 weeks suggested that alternative <52-week cut-points also lack validity.

CONCLUSION

The traditional 1-year cut-point validly identifies increasing BRD severity; DSM's 2-month cut-point does not. Duration does not indicate increasing BRD severity before 1 year. Research using the 2-month cut-point may yield misleading results.

Alcohol and depression

AIMS

To examine the literature on the associations between alcohol use disorders (AUD) and major depression (MD), and to evaluate the evidence for the existence of a causal relationship between the disorders.

METHODS

PsycInfo; PubMed; Embase; Scopus; ISI Web of Science database searches for studies pertaining to AUD and MD from the 1980 to the present. Random-effects models were used to derive estimates of the pooled adjusted odds ratios (AOR) for the links between AUD and MD among studies reporting an AOR.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed that the presence of either disorder doubled the risks of the second disorder, with pooled AORs ranging from 2.00 to 2.09. Epidemiological data suggest that the linkages between the disorders cannot be accounted for fully by common factors that influence both AUD and MD, and that the disorders appear to be linked in a causal manner. Further evidence suggests that the most plausible causal association between AUD and MD is one in which AUD increases the risk of MD, rather than vice versa. Potential mechanisms underlying these causal linkages include neurophysiological and metabolic changes resulting from exposure to alcohol. The need for further research examining mechanisms of linkage, gender differences in associations between AUD and MD and classification issues was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The current state of the literature suggests a causal linkage between alcohol use disorders and major depression, such that increasing involvement with alcohol increases risk of depression. Further research is needed in order to clarify the nature of this causal link, in order to develop effective intervention and treatment approaches.

DSM bereavement exclusion for major depression and objective cognitive impairment

BACKGROUND

The bereavement exclusion criterion for DSM major depressive episodes (MDE) has been challenged regarding symptom severity. This study aimed at assessing objective cognitive impairment, reflecting hippocampal function, in patients excluded from the diagnosis of major depression because of the bereavement exclusion. We expected that the bereavement excluded (BE) individuals would have less objective cognitive impairment than matched MDE patients.

METHODS

1138 individuals seeking treatment and meeting all DSM MDE criteria except the bereavement exclusion criterion (BE group) were matched for age, gender, educational level and the number of past MDE with 1138 MDE patients (MDE group). They were compared for the delayed paragraph recall index from the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised at baseline and 6-week follow-up.

RESULTS

The BE and MDE groups were not different in terms of immediate and delayed recall at baseline and follow-up. In both groups, multiple regression analyses showed that the number of correct answers of delayed recall at follow-up was not correlated with the HAD depression score but was correlated with the number of past major depressive episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Instead of identifying subjects with less cognitive impairment, the bereavement exclusion selected subjects with similar cognitive impairment than MDE patients and similar neurotoxic effect on the hippocampus. The DSM bereavement exclusion for MDE is inadequate according to objective cognitive impairment, at least in this sample of individuals seeking treatment for depressive symptoms. Bereavement, just as any stressful event, could be quoted, but without interfering in the definition of major depressive episodes.

Measuring depression and PTSD after trauma: common scales and checklists

Traumatic injury is an important public health problem secondary to high levels of morbidity and mortality. Injured survivors face several physical, emotional, and financial repercussions that can significantly impact their lives as well as their family. Depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are the most common psychiatric sequelae associated with traumatic injury. Factors affecting the prevalence of these psychiatric symptoms include: concomitant TBI, the timing of assessment of depression and PTSD, the type of injury, premorbid, sociodemographic, and cultural factors, and co-morbid medical conditions and medication side effects. The appropriate assessment of depression and PTSD is critical to an understanding of the potential consequences of these disorders as well as the development of appropriate behavioural and pharmacological treatments. The reliability and validity of screening instruments and structured clinical interviews used to assess depression and PTSD must be considered. Common self-report instruments and structured clinical interviews used to assess depression and PTSD and their reliability and validity are described. Future changes in diagnostic criteria for depression and PTSD and recent initiatives by the National Institute of Health regarding patient-reported outcomes may result in new methods of assessing these psychiatric sequelae of traumatic injury.

Grief and bereavement: what psychiatrists need to know

THIS REVIEW COVERS FOUR AREAS OF CLINICAL IMPORTANCE TO PRACTICING PSYCHIATRISTS: a) symptoms and course of uncomplicated (normal) grief; b) differential diagnosis, clinical characteristics and treatment of complicated grief; c) differential diagnosis, clinical characteristics and treatment of grief-related major depression; and d) psychiatrists' reactions to patient suicides. Psychiatrists often are ill prepared to identify complicated grief and grief-related major depression, and may not always be trained to identify or provide the most appropriate course of treatment. Both conditions overlap with symptoms found in ordinary, uncomplicated grief, and often are written off as "normal" with the faulty assumption that time, strength of character and the natural support system will heal. While uncomplicated grief may be extremely painful, disruptive and consuming, it is usually tolerable and self-limited and does not require formal treatment. However, both complicated grief and grief-related major depression can be persistent and gravely disabling, can dramatically interfere with function and quality of life, and may even be life threatening in the absence of treatment; and both usually respond to targeted psychiatric interventions. In addition, patient suicide has been reported as one of the most frequent and stressful crises experienced by health providers, and psychiatrists are not immune to complicated grief or grief-related depression when they, themselves, become survivors. Thus, it is essential for psychiatrists to recognize their own vulnerabilities to the personal assaults that often accompany such losses, not only for their own mental health and well-being, but also to provide the most sensitive and enlightened care to their patients.