Depressed older patients with the atypical features of interpersonal rejection sensitivity and reversed-vegetative symptoms are similar to younger atypical patients

Association of depression with all-cause and cancer-specific mortality in older adults with cancer: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

INTRODUCTION

The incidence and mortality of cancer is increasing worldwide with studies reporting that cumulative risk of cancer rises as age increases. Against the backdrop of the increasing prevalence of cancer amongst older patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the depression-mortality relationship in older adults with cancer (OAC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This PRISMA-adherent systematic review involved a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for prospective and retrospective cohort studies comparing the risk of all-cause and cancer-related mortality among OAC with depression. Random effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used for the primary analysis.

RESULTS

From 5,280 citations, we included 14 cohort studies. Meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) showed an increased incidence of all-cause mortality in OAC with depression (pooled HR: 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25, 1.55). Subgroup analyses of other categorical study-level characteristics were insignificant. While risk of cancer-related mortality in OAC with depression was insignificantly increased with a pooled HR of 1.21 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.49), subgroup analysis indicated that risk of cancer-related mortality in OAC with depression significantly differed with cancer type. Our systematic review found that having fewer comorbidities, a higher education level, greater socioeconomic status, and positive social supportive factors lowered risk of all-cause mortality in OAC with depression.

DISCUSSION

Depression in OAC significantly increases risk of all-cause mortality and cancer-related mortality among different cancer types. It is imperative for healthcare providers and policy makers to recognize vulnerable subgroups among older adults with cancer to individualize interventions.

Differences in cognitive functions of atypical and non-atypical depression based on propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Clinical and etiological heterogeneity have hindered our understanding of depression, thus driving the studies of major depressive disorder (MDD) subtypes. Atypical depression (AD) is a subtype of MDD with atypical features. Cognitive impairment is one of the factors that contribute to the suffering of patients with MDD. Therefore, this study investigated the characteristics and differences in cognitive functioning of AD and non-atypical depression (non-AD) using the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB).

METHODS

A total of 101 patients with AD and 252 patients with non-AD were assessed with the MCCB and clinical scales. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance confounders between groups. After PSM, between-group differences were compared for cognitive and clinical variables. In addition, multiple linear regression analyses were performed to explore the effects of cognitive and clinical variables on the quality of life.

RESULTS

The AD group scored significantly lower in attention/vigilance and social cognition in all cognitive domains than the non-AD group. Attention/vigilance and social cognition were significant positive predictors of quality of life, whereas atypical symptoms and depressive severity were significant negative predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests significant differences in cognitive functions between the AD and non-AD subtypes. Atypical symptoms and impaired cognition have a negative impact on patients' quality of life. Attention/vigilance and social cognition are worse in AD than non-AD, which the atypical features of patients with AD may explain. The pathological mechanisms and treatment strategies of AD should be further explored in the future to promote individualized treatment strategies.

Six-year longitudinal course and outcomes of subtypes of depression

BACKGROUND

Clinical and aetiological heterogeneity have impeded our understanding of depression.

AIMS

To evaluate differences in psychiatric and somatic course between people with depression subtypes that differed clinically (severity) and aetiologically (melancholic v. atypical).

METHOD

Data from baseline, 2-, 4- and 6-year follow-up of The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety were used, and included 600 controls and 648 people with major depressive disorder (subtypes: severe melancholic n = 308; severe atypical n = 167; moderate n = 173, established using latent class analysis).

RESULTS

Those with the moderate subtype had a significantly better psychiatric clinical course than the severe melancholic and atypical subtype groups. Suicidal thoughts and anxiety persisted longer in those with the melancholic subtype. The atypical subtype group continued to have the highest body mass index and highest prevalence of metabolic syndrome during follow-up, although differences between groups became less pronounced over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Course trajectories of depressive subtypes mostly ran parallel to each other, with baseline severity being the most important differentiator in course between groups.

Melancholia in later life: late and early onset differences in presentation, course, and dementia risk

OBJECTIVES

Depression is a risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia. This risk may vary with age of onset and depression subtype. Late onset depression (LOD, 60 years and older) is associated with more cognitive decline, whereas early onset depression (EOD, before 60 years) is associated with more residual depressive symptoms. Potential differences may reflect divergent etiologies. These onset differences, however, have not been examined in the melancholic subtype of depression in older adults.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Neurocognitive Outcomes of Depression in the Elderly study. Participants (N = 284, 73% EOD-melancholic (EOD-M) and 27% LOD-melancholic (LOD-M)) were followed up over 3 years. Factor analyses examined differences in baseline depressive symptoms. Hierarchical linear growth curve models examined changes in depressive symptoms (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) and cognition (mini mental state examination). An annual clinical review panel assigned diagnoses of dementia.

RESULTS

The LOD-M participants had more vegetative symptoms at baseline. LOD-M exhibited greater cognitive decline but fewer residual depressive symptoms than EOD-M. Among participants who remained in the study for at least 1 year, in uncontrolled analyses, a greater percentage of LOD-M compared with EOD-M developed dementia (23.0% vs. 7.8%). Whereas in logistic analyses, controlling for baseline demographics, age at onset remained a predictor of dementia, the odds ratio suggested that the effect was relatively small.

CONCLUSIONS

The EOD-M and LOD-M participants have a different presentation and course. LOD-M may represent a syndrome of neuropsychiatric deterioration with expression of both depressive symptoms and cognitive decline.