Prognostic prediction of subjective cognitive decline in major depressive disorder based on immune biomarkers: a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is highlighted in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), which impairs objective cognitive performance and worsens the clinical outcomes. Immune dysregulation is supposed to be the potential mechanism of cognitive impairment. However, the peripheral immune biomarkers in patients troubled with MDD and SCD are not conventionally described. METHODS: A prospective-observational study was conducted for 8 weeks. Subjective cognitive function was measured using the Chinese version of the 20-item perceived deficits questionnaire-depression (PDQ-D) and depression symptoms were evaluated with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HDRS-17). Luminex assays were used to measure 48 immune cytokines in plasma at baseline. Integrating these results and clinicopathological features, a logistic regression model was used to develop a prognostic prediction. RESULTS: Totally, 114 patients were enrolled in this study. Among the patients who completed follow-up, 56% (N = 50) had residual subjective cognitive decline, and 44% (N = 50) did not. The plasma levels of FGF basic, INF-γ, IL-1ß, MCP-1, M-CSF and SCF were increased and the levels of IL-9, RANTES and PDGF-BB were decreased in the SCD group. Additionally, Basic FGF, IFN-γ, IL-1ß, and SCF were positively correlated and IL-9, RANTES, and PDGF-BB were negatively correlated with the PDQ-D scores after treatment. Notably, combinations of cytokines (SCF and PDGF-BB) and PDQ-D scores at baseline showed good performance (The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.818) in the prediction of subjective cognitive decline. CONCLUSION: A prognostic model based on protein concentrations of SCF, PDGF-BB, and scores of PDQ-D showed considerable accuracy in predicting residual subjective cognitive decline in depression.

Association between overt aggression and anhedonia in patients with major depressive disorder during the acute phase.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the factors influencing anhedonia at baseline and use them as confounding factors. To further investigate the correlation between overt aggression and anhedonia during the acute phase of major depressive disorder. METHODS: In this eight-week prospective study, 384 major depressive disorder patients were recruited from the outpatient section of Shanghai Mental Health Center from May 1, 2017, to October 30, 2018. Standard treatments were performed with escitalopram or venlafaxine for participants. Depressive symptoms, overt aggression, and anhedonia were assessed using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Modified Overt Aggression Scale, and Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale at baseline, and in the 4th and 8th weeks. RESULTS: Obsessive-compulsive symptoms and the duration of untreated psychosis were positively associated with aggression (P < 0.05). Patients with aggressive behaviour had worse cognitive impairment and severe anhedonia of pleasurable sensory experiences (P < 0.05). For anhedonia, being female (tau_b = -0.23, P = 0.012) was a protective factor, while number of recurrent, melancholic features, current obsessions, previous combination drug therapies, depressive symptoms, and aggressive behaviour were risk factors (P < 0.05). Social anhedonia related to interests/pastimes, and pleasurable sensory experiences were more severe in major depressive disorder patients with aggressive behaviour in the acute phase (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Anhedonia persisted in major depressive disorder patients with aggressive behaviour after standardized treatment during the acute phase. Being female protected the pleasures from social interaction and sensory experience. However, the number of depressive episodes, melancholic features, current obsessive symptoms, previous combination drug therapies, depressive symptoms, and aggressive behaviour was positively associated with anhedonia.

Clinical features of the patients with major depressive disorder co-occurring insomnia and hypersomnia symptoms: a report of NSSD study.

BACKGROUND: The co-occurrence of insomnia and hypersomnia symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with suicidal ideation and functional impairment. The relationship between sleep disturbances and clinical features and outcomes may not be adequately studied. In this study, we measured the functional impairments and clinical features of co-occurring insomnia and hypersomnia symptoms in Chinese patients with MDD. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis was performed on data from the National Survey on Symptomatology of Depression (NSSD), which assessed the MDD patients in 32 hospitals by a clinician-rating questionnaire. The clinical features and outcomes were compared among the following four groups: insomnia symptom only, hypersomnia symptom only, both insomnia and hypersomnia symptoms, no sleep disturbance, respectively. RESULTS: Totally, 234 (7.15%) of 3275 participants with MDD co-occurred insomnia and hypersomnia symptoms. They had more depressive symptoms (27.41 ± 9.123), higher rate of suicide ideation (39.7%), more severe impairment in physical (58.1%), economic (32.9%), work (55.1%), and relationship with families (29.5%). Patients with both sleep disturbances were more likely to excessive worry about sleep, have suicidal ideation, the distress of social disharmony, more somatic symptoms, lack of energy, hyperphagia, loss of mood reactivity, and diurnal change, whereas less likely to have anxious mood. LIMITATIONS: Sleep disorders were not diagnosed by current standard diagnostic criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Patients co-occurring with both sleep disturbances are associated with a higher rate of suicide risk and poorer social function. Our study could provide implications for suicidal risk evaluation and the development of therapeutic strategies for depression.

Disagreement and factors between symptom on self-report and clinician rating of major depressive disorder: A report of a national survey in China.

BACKGROUND: Measurement-based care (MBC) is a popular strategy of clinical management for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). The consistency of self-report and clinical measurements is of importance, but whether individual symptom severity is in agreement for both self-report and clinician rating in MDD has not been comprehensively tested. This study aimed to test whether individual symptom severity of MDD was in agreement between self-report and clinician rating, and to explore factors affecting the agreement. METHODS: In the National Survey on Symptomatology of Depression (NSSD) of China, 3275 patients with a major depressive episode were evaluated by both self-report and a clinician-rated version of 62 questions. RESULTS: On average, 59% of all patients reached absolute agreement with their research clinicians. Among all questions, 73% returned with moderate positive strength of correlation, followed by 27% with low positive correlation. In 77% of the total questions, there was a tendency to rate higher in the self-report version compared with the clinician-rated version. After classifying the symptoms by six major domains, it was found that patients and clinicians showed more consistent answers in history and somatic questions (81% and 65% reached agreement), and that there were more differences in mood, energy, and anxiety questions (up to 56% in full agreement). "Outpatient", "high financial status", "poor working condition", and "high education level" were found to be significant positive predictors for patients rating higher than clinicians or patients and clinicians reaching agreement as opposed to clinicians rating higher than patients. LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional nature of our study undermines the interpretation of the results across the MDD treatment course. CONCLUSIONS: It is sufficient to use the self-report version of a questionnaire to screen, monitor, and detect remission for MDD symptoms. Complete assessment of depression severity should take both clinician-rated scales and self-reported measures into consideration. Factors other than source of admission, financial status, working condition, and education level should be further investigated for the discrepancy between self-report and clinician rating.