High reactivity of the cortisol awakening response predicts positive treatment outcome in heterogeneous depressed patients completing an alternate milieu inpatient program

OBJECTIVE

Delineating clinically meaningful subgroups within heterogeneous depressed populations is a major challenge. As outlined in the Research Domain Criteria Strategy, biomarkers may help to empirically classify such patients. Following this basic strategy, the current pilot study examined whether the cortisol awakening response (CAR) following admission to hospital predicts treatment response in heterogeneous depressed patients completing a 4-week alternate milieu inpatient program.

METHODS

The Alternate Inpatient Milieu program at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is composed of both individual-based and group-based programming designed to promote a recovery-oriented, collaborative treatment environment. The current sample consisted of 25 consecutive patients with various forms of complex/chronic depression who completed the full program. Saliva samples were collected at 0, 30 and 60 min after awakening on 2 consecutive days following admission. Linear regressions controlling for baseline depression scores were used to assess whether the CAR AUCg (area under the curve ground) and/or AUCi (area under the curve increase) at admission predicted the change in depression scores from admission to discharge based on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms scale.

RESULTS

The CAR AUCi, but not the CAR AUCg, at admission significantly predicted treatment response over the 4-week hospital stay. In these naturalistic patients with major depressive disorder, high CAR reactivity as assessed using the AUCi was associated with a better treatment response (t=2.20; df=2,24; P=.039). The CAR was easy to implement and well accepted by patients and staff.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that CAR reactivity at admission may help to identify a subgroup of depressed patients most likely to respond clinically to a 4-week alternate milieu inpatient program.

Evaluating distance education of a mindfulness-based meditation programme for chronic pain management

Summary

Patients with chronic pain were recruited from two large urban hospitals and from rural hospitals in Ontario. Patients on the waiting list served as controls. The intervention was a Mindfulness-Based Chronic Pain Management course, delivered to patients for two hours per week for 10 weeks. Pre- and postcourse measures of quality of life, pain catastrophizing and usual pain ratings were collected over a period of two years. Patients received the course via traditional face-to-face, in-person teaching (Present site group) or via videoconferencing at their local hospital site (Distant site group). In all, there were 99 Present site participants, 57 at Distant sites and 59 waitlist controls. Patients at Present and Distant sites achieved similar gains in mental health ( P < 0.01) and pain catastrophizing levels ( P < 0.01) relative to controls. However, the Present site group obtained significantly higher scores on the physical dimension of quality of life ( P < 0.01) and lower usual-pain ratings ( P < 0.05) than the Distant site group. The results suggest that videoconferencing is an effective mode of delivery for the Mindfulness course and may represent a new way of helping chronic pain patients in rural areas manage their suffering.

The national survey of adverse reactions to dental materials in the UK: a preliminary study by the UK Adverse Reactions Reporting Project

OBJECTIVE

Dental treatment involves the use of a wide range of materials. Many of the dental materials or their components pose a potential risk to the patient and member of the dental team. Pre-market biocompatibility testing cannot guarantee absolute safety, making monitoring of materials likely to cause an adverse reaction essential. The prevalence of adverse reactions to dental materials amongst dental patients and staff has not been systematically monitored in the UK. This project aims to develop a systematic approach to the evaluation and monitoring of the extent and severity of adverse reactions to dental materials in the UK.

METHOD

Through the distribution of reporting forms to dental surgeries and laboratories in the UK, the ARRP has received 1,075 complete reports relating to adverse reactions seen or experienced by dental staff and patients.

RESULTS

The main findings were that different materials cause adverse reactions to different groups of people. The largest proportion of patient related adverse reactions were reported to be due to metals (n = 175). These were mainly amalgam associated oral lichenoid reactions (n = 124). Dental technicians reported acrylic resin as the causal factor of hand dermatitis in 61% (44 out of a total 72) of cases reported. Finally, dental surgery staff reported gloves as causing hand dermatitis in 75% of cases (398 out of a total 531).

CONCLUSIONS

Different dental materials affect different person groups depending on their exposure to the material. Dental staff are most at risk from an adverse reaction to latex gloves, whereas most reported reactions for patients were due to metals. For dental technicians the biggest danger of an adverse reaction was from acrylic resins. There is a need to continue to raise the awareness among dental professionals of the existence of the Adverse Reactions Reporting Project so as to overcome problems of under-reporting.

Adverse reactions to protective gloves used in the dental profession: experience of the UK Adverse Reaction Reporting Project

The Adverse Reaction Reporting Project (ARRP) was set up to measure the extent and severity of adverse reactions to dental materials in the UK. Further analysis into the use of protective gloves has been carried out to establish the degree to which gloves are having a deleterious effect on the dental profession. In addition the survey aimed to establish the techniques used to manage adverse reactions and their effectiveness. In a 23-month period, 369 reports were received concerning adverse reactions to protective gloves used in dental practices. Reporters were contacted for further information, and a 92% response rate was achieved. The 330 reports analysed showed dentists to be the largest group to report adverse reactions, whilst dental technicians reported the fewest. The referral rate for staff and patients was similar with a third of adverse reactions being referred (n=110) to a specialist for diagnosis. A confirmed diagnosis was received in 65% of referred cases (n=72), but the symptoms reported suggested a larger degree of Type I reactions occurring than diagnosed. The use of non-powdered gloves appeared to be favoured over powdered gloves in 42% of glove changes, and nitrile gloves were used as an alternative to latex in 39% of changes. In conclusion, the results from this survey showed that wearing gloves in dental practices in the UK caused a range of adverse reactions. In 79% (n=330) of cases reported and analysed, these reactions were readily resolved or improved by self-medication, prescribed medication and/or changing to a different type of protective glove.