A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on inflammation in depressive illness and symptoms in chronic and end-stage kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Depression affects approximately 27% of adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney failure (ESKF). Depression in this population is associated with impaired quality of life and increased mortality. The extent of inflammation and the impact on depression in CKD/ESKF is yet to be established. Through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, we aim to understand the relationship between depression and inflammation in CKD/ESKF patients. METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases for published studies until January 2022. Titles and abstracts were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction and study quality assessment was carried out independently by two reviewers. A meta-analysis was carried out where appropriate; otherwise a narrative review of studies was completed. RESULTS: Sixty studies met our inclusion criteria and entered the review (9481 patients included in meta-analysis). Meta-analysis of cross-sectional associations revealed significantly higher levels of pro-inflammatory biomarkers; C-reactive protein; Interleukin 6 (IL-6) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha in patients with depressive symptoms (DS) compared to patients without DS. Significantly lower levels of anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 were found in patients with DS compared to patients without DS. Considerable heterogeneity was detected in the analysis for most inflammatory markers. CONCLUSION: We found evidence for an association of higher levels of pro-inflammatory and lower anti-inflammatory cytokines and DS in patients with CKD/ESKF. Clinical trials are needed to investigate whether anti-inflammatory therapies will be effective in the prevention and treatment of DS in these patients with multiple comorbidities.

Investigating inflammation in depression in the chronically ill: Theoretical model and perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation is a risk factor for chronic physical illnesses. Evidence is building that inflammation is also a risk factor for mental illnesses making inflammation a common mechanism which could explain the high comorbidity between mental and physical illnesses. METHODS: Based on a systematic search, a review on factors associated with inflammation in the depressed chronically ill has been conducted. Relevant articles have been selected according to the methodological considerations (scope, sample size, type of analysis and bias). RESULTS: Five categories of factors mediate the association between chronic physical and mental illnesses: (1) social-demographic factors, (2) social-economic background, (3) adverse health behaviours, (4) psychological stress and (5) genetics. Psychological therapies and medication also moderate this association. A theoretical model of the interplay between inflammation, depression and chronic physical illness is then presented. DISCUSSION: Inflammation contribute to both chronic physical and mental illnesses. These conclusions support future advances in clinical and research practice, as well as training and education.

Severe mental illness and health service utilisation for nonpsychiatric medical disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric comorbidity is known to impact upon use of nonpsychiatric health services. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the specific impact of severe mental illness (SMI) on the use of inpatient, emergency, and primary care services for nonpsychiatric medical disorders. METHODS AND FINDINGS: PubMed, Web of Science, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies up to October 2018. An updated search was carried out up to the end of February 2020. Studies were included if they assessed the impact of SMI on nonpsychiatric inpatient, emergency, and primary care service use in adults. Study designs eligible for review included observational cohort and case-control studies and randomised controlled trials. Random-effects meta-analyses of the effect of SMI on inpatient admissions, length of hospital stay, 30-day hospital readmission rates, and emergency department use were performed. This review protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019119516). Seventy-four studies were eligible for review. All were observational cohort or case-control studies carried out in high-income countries. Sample sizes ranged from 27 to 10,777,210. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The majority of studies (n = 45) were deemed to be of good quality. Narrative analysis showed that SMI led to increases in use of inpatient, emergency, and primary care services. Meta-analyses revealed that patients with SMI were more likely to be admitted as nonpsychiatric inpatients (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-2.80, p = 0.005, I2 = 100%), had hospital stays that were increased by 0.59 days (pooled standardised mean difference = 0.59 days, 95% CI 0.36-0.83, p < 0.001, I2 = 100%), were more likely to be readmitted to hospital within 30 days (pooled OR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.28-1.47, p < 0.001, I2 = 83%), and were more likely to attend the emergency department (pooled OR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.41-2.76, p < 0.001, I2 = 99%) compared to patients without SMI. Study limitations include considerable heterogeneity across studies, meaning that results of meta-analyses should be interpreted with caution, and the fact that it was not always possible to determine whether service use outcomes definitively excluded mental health treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that SMI impacts significantly upon the use of nonpsychiatric health services. Illustrating and quantifying this helps to build a case for and guide the delivery of system-wide integration of mental and physical health services.

The differential impact of neuropathic, musculoskeletal and neurovascular orofacial pain on psychosocial function.

BACKGROUND: While the psychosocial morbidity of orofacial pain (OFP) is widely recognized, the differential impact of musculoskeletal, neuropathic and neurovascular symptoms on pain and psychosocial function in individuals with and without coexisting OFP conditions is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a comparative cross-sectional study of 350 consecutive patients attending an OFP clinic; 244 completed standardized self-report measures of pain experience, mood, and generic and oral health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The impact of musculoskeletal, neuropathic and neurovascular symptoms on measures was assessed using linear and logistic generalized linear models. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were diagnosed with a neuropathic condition: 125 with musculoskeletal pain and 101 with (neurovascular) headache disorders. 23% of patients presented with multiple OFP conditions; this was more common in patients with neurovascular (62%) than neuropathic (21%) and/or musculoskeletal orofacial symptoms (28%). Patients with neurovascular symptoms experienced significantly higher levels of pain, evidenced less pain self-efficacy and had poorer overall health. Neuropathic OFP was significantly associated with greater psychological and social oral health disability. Multiple OFP symptoms were not linked to pain severity or psychosocial function, although health scores were worse for patients with neurovascular pain and neuropathic/musculoskeletal symptoms compared with patients with only neurovascular symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The profile and degree of psychosocial morbidity in patients with OFP is significantly related to the types of presenting orofacial symptoms. Patients with neurovascular pain present with higher pain levels and have poorer health while those with neuropathic pain have higher oral functional morbidity; both may require more complex multidisciplinary management.

Assessment and treatment of physical health problems among people with schizophrenia: national cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK and other high-income countries, life expectancy in people with schizophrenia is 20% lower than in the general population. AIMS: To examine the quality of assessment and treatment of physical health problems in people with schizophrenia. Method Retrospective audit of records of people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder aged ⩾18. We collected data on nine key aspects of physical health for 5091 patients and combined these with a cross-sectional patient survey. RESULTS: Body mass index was recorded in 2599 (51.1%) patients during the previous 12 months and 1102 (21.6%) had evidence of assessment of all nine key measures. Among those with high blood sugar, there was recorded evidence of 53.5% receiving an appropriate intervention. Among those with dyslipidaemia, this was 19.9%. Despite this, most patients reported that they were satisfied with the physical healthcare they received. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment and treatment of common physical health problems in people with schizophrenia falls well below acceptable standards. Cooperation and communication between primary and secondary care services needs to improve if premature mortality in this group is to be reduced.

Quality of prescribing for schizophrenia: evidence from a national audit in England and Wales.

The National Audit of Schizophrenia (NAS) examined the quality of care received in England and Wales. Part of the audit set out to determine whether six prescribing standards, set by the national clinical guidelines for schizophrenia, were being implemented and to prompt improvements in care. Mental Health Trusts and Health Boards provided data obtained from case-notes for adult patients living in the community with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. An audit of practice tool was developed for data collection. Most of the 5055 patients reviewed were receiving pharmacological treatment according to national guidelines. However, 15.9% of the total sample (95%CI: 14.9-16.9) were prescribed two or more antipsychotics concurrently and 10.1% of patients (95%CI: 9.3-10.9) were prescribed medication in excess of recommended limits. Overall 23.7% (95%CI: 22.5-24.8) of patients were receiving clozapine. However, there were many with treatment resistance who had no clear reason documented as to why they had not had a trial of clozapine (430/1073, 40.1%). In conclusion, whilst most people were prescribed medication in accordance with nationally agreed standards, there was considerable variation between service providers. Antipsychotic polypharmacy, high dose prescribing and clozapine underutilisation in treatment resistance were all key concerns which need to be further addressed.