Effectiveness evaluation of mood disorder treatment algorithms in Brazilian public healthcare patients

Diagnosis of bipolar and major depressive disorders: The appropriateness of MINI compared to the clinical interview in a sample of patients with mood disorders in tertiary mental health care

OBJECTIVE

The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) is one of the most used instruments for the assessment of Mental Disorders, playing an essential role in psychiatric research and in clinical and hospital practice. Despite this, the accuracy of the MINI, when used by a psychiatrist, is poorly studied, particularly in relation to Bipolar Disorder (BD). The early diagnosis of BD and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is extremely important, as it provides an opportunity for intervention that can reduce the impact on the patient's daily life and functionality. As such, this study assesses the suitability of MINI for diagnosing BD or MDD in a sample of patients with mood disorders.

METHOD

Agreement between the MINI and the clinical interview was assessed in a sample of 347 outpatients by calculating Cohen's kappa, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and the area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 347 patients with mood disorders. 279 were women (80.40%), 105 (30.3%) were diagnosed with MDD and 242 (69.7%) with BD from the assessment performed in the clinical interview. In the MINI assessment, 97 individuals (28%) were classified with a diagnosis of MDD and 250 (72%) with BD. We found a sensitivity of 87.2% and specificity of 62.8% for the MINI in the diagnosis of BD and a Cohen's kappa between the MINI and the clinical interview of 0.51. The AUC was 0.75.

CONCLUSIONS

MINI has greater sensitivity (87.2%) for the diagnosis of BD and greater specificity (87.2%) for the diagnosis of MDD. In addition, the moderate Cohen kappa (0.51) and AUC (0.75) values between the MINI and the clinical interview are acceptable when considering most available psychiatric diagnostic tools.

Leite V, Porto DM, Robis KP, Fidalgo TM, Rocha GA, Diaz AP, Meleiro A, Correa H, Tung TC, Malloy-Diniz L, Quevedo J, da Silva AG. Brazilian Psychiatric Association guidelines for the management of suicidal behavior. Part 2. Screening, intervention, and prevention

This article continues our presentation of the Brazilian Psychiatric Association guidelines for the management of patients with suicidal behavior, with a focus on screening, intervention, postvention, prevention, and promotion. For the development of these guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and SciELO databases for research published from 1997 to 2020. Systematic reviews, clinical trials, and cohort/observational studies on screening, intervention, and prevention in suicidal behavior were included. This project involved 14 Brazilian psychiatry professionals and 1 psychologist selected by the Psychiatric Emergencies Committee of the Brazilian Psychiatric Association for their experience and knowledge in psychiatry and psychiatric emergencies. Publications were evaluated according to the 2011 Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence Classification. Eighty-five articles were reviewed (of 5,362 initially collected and 755 abstracts on the drug approach). Forms of screening, intervention, and prevention are presented. The intervention section presents evidence for psychotherapeutic and drug interventions. For the latter, it is important to remember that each medication is effective only for specific groups and should not replace treatment protocols. We maintain our recommendation for the use of universal screening plus intervention. Although the various studies differ in terms of the populations evaluated and several proposals are presented, there is already significant evidence for certain interventions. Suicidal behavior can be analyzed by evidence-based medicine protocols. Currently, the best strategy is to combine several techniques through the Safety Plan. Nevertheless, further research on the topic is needed to elucidate some approaches with particular potential for intervention and prevention. Systematic review registry number: CRD42020206517.

Changing practice: assessing attitudes toward a NICE-informed collaborative treatment pathway for bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental health condition, which can result in functional impairment despite medication. A large evidence base supports use of psychological therapies and structured care in the treatment of mood disorders, but these are rarely implemented. e-Pathways are digital structures that inform and record patient progress through a healthcare system, although these have not yet been used for bipolar disorder.

AIMS

To assess the perceived benefits and costs associated with implementing a collaborative NICE-informed e-pathway for bipolar disorder.

METHOD

Healthcare professionals and people with bipolar disorder attended a workshop to share feedback on e-pathways. Data were collected through questionnaires (n = 26) and transcription of a focus group, analysed qualitatively by a framework analysis.

RESULTS

Patients and healthcare professionals welcomed the development of an e-pathway for bipolar disorder. There were five elements to the framework: quality and delivery of care, patient-clinician collaboration, flexibility and adaptability, impact on staff and impact on healthcare services.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of benefits and costs ensures that future development of e-pathways addresses concerns of healthcare professionals and people with bipolar disorder, which would be essential for successful implementation. Recommendations for this development include making e-pathways less complicated for patients, ensuring sufficient training and ensuring clinicians do not feel their skills become invalidated. Limitations of the study, and directions for future research, are discussed.

Assessment of the psychometric properties of the 17- and 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scales in major depressive disorder, bipolar depression and bipolar depression with mixed features

Assessing therapeutic response in depression requires scales that adequately measure the core symptoms of depressive symptomatology. The main goal of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) and the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D6) in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), bipolar depression and bipolar depression with mixed features. We conducted a reanalysis of a pragmatic clinical trial in an outpatient clinic for mood disorders that included eight weeks of follow-up. A Mokken analysis was performed to evaluate the unidimensionality of the HAM-D17 and HAM-D6, and the Spearman correlation was used to assess concurrent validity between the HAM-D17, the HAM-D6 and quality of life scale (SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF) scores. A total of 237 patients with a mean age of 40.2 years (±11.7) were included. According to the DSM-IV criteria, 58 (24.5%) were diagnosed with MDD and 73 (30.8%) were diagnosed with bipolar depression. Bipolar depression with mixed features was diagnosed in 106 (44.7%) patients according to the DSM-IV and supplemented by the Cincinnati criteria. Only the HAM-D6 scale proved to be unidimensional, showing strong homogeneity for evaluating MDD, moderate homogeneity for bipolar depression and weak homogeneity for bipolar depression with mixed features. Both the HAM-D17 and the HAM-D6 had inverse, significant correlations at baseline with SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF scores. This is the first study to include bipolar depression patients with mixed features in an assessment of HAM-D6 unidimensionality.