Comorbidity between major depressive disorder and physical diseases: a comprehensive review of epidemiology, mechanisms and management.

Populations with common physical diseases - such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer and neurodegenerative disorders - experience substantially higher rates of major depressive disorder (MDD) than the general population. On the other hand, people living with MDD have a greater risk for many physical diseases. This high level of comorbidity is associated with worse outcomes, reduced adherence to treatment, increased mortality, and greater health care utilization and costs. Comorbidity can also result in a range of clinical challenges, such as a more complicated therapeutic alliance, issues pertaining to adaptive health behaviors, drug-drug interactions and adverse events induced by medications used for physical and mental disorders. Potential explanations for the high prevalence of the above comorbidity involve shared genetic and biological pathways. These latter include inflammation, the gut microbiome, mitochondrial function and energy metabolism, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysregulation, and brain structure and function. Furthermore, MDD and physical diseases have in common several antecedents related to social factors (e.g., socioeconomic status), lifestyle variables (e.g., physical activity, diet, sleep), and stressful live events (e.g., childhood trauma). Pharmacotherapies and psychotherapies are effective treatments for comorbid MDD, and the introduction of lifestyle interventions as well as collaborative care models and digital technologies provide promising strategies for improving management. This paper aims to provide a detailed overview of the epidemiology of the comorbidity of MDD and specific physical diseases, including prevalence and bidirectional risk; of shared biological pathways potentially implicated in the pathogenesis of MDD and common physical diseases; of socio-environmental factors that serve as both shared risk and protective factors; and of management of MDD and physical diseases, including prevention and treatment. We conclude with future directions and emerging research related to optimal care of people with comorbid MDD and physical diseases.

Digital health experiences reported in chronic disease management: An umbrella review of qualitative studies.

INTRODUCTION: Digital health interventions can be useful for the management of chronic disease. The aim of this study was to draw out universal themes to understand how people with chronic conditions experience digital health services, programmes, and interventions, and consequently, better inform future digital health delivery. METHODS: An umbrella review was conducted to identify qualitative systematic reviews reporting digital health experiences in chronic disease. Themes for each included review were independently extracted and appraised by two review authors. Data analysis was conducted using the Constant Comparative method. RESULTS: Twenty-two systematic reviews containing 240 individual studies were selected for inclusion. Mental health was the most common condition (n = 5, 23%), followed by cancer (n = 4, 18%) or a combination of chronic diseases (n = 4, 18%). Common themes across the conditions were categorised under nine headings, including: (i) participation and engagement (strong usability and engagement vs reluctance to use digital health when these concepts are ignored), (ii) trust, confidence, and competence (users felt reassured, however technology illiteracy led to a perceived lack of control), (iii) perceived value, perceived effectiveness, transaction cost (gained from efficient aspects of digital health, but also lost through the burden of keeping up with data entry), (iv) perceived care quality (requiring tailoring and fostering motivation), (v) barriers and threats (related to technology risks and challenges), (vi) health outcomes (improved self-management capability), (vii) relationships (improved participant-health professional interaction, but interpersonal aspects such as face-to-face contact were lacking), (viii) unplanned benefit (where digital health often led to users feeling more empowered in their health journey), and (ix) diversity of experiences (reflecting ambivalence of experiences and discipline-specific experiences). CONCLUSION: People with chronic conditions perceive digital health provides feelings of reassurance and the ability to self-manage their condition. While there is ambivalence across the participant experiences reported within the major themes, this umbrella review has outlined a need for future interventions that are user-friendly, flexible, and tailored to individual users. This will be best achieved through a co-design model, with the consumer actively involved in the planning and design of digital health products and services.

Maternal inflammatory and omega-3 fatty acid pathways mediate the association between socioeconomic disadvantage and childhood cognition.

Poor cognitive outcomes in early childhood predict poor educational outcomes and diminished health over the life course. We sought to investigate (i) whether maternal metabolites predict child cognition, and (ii) if maternal metabolomic profile mediates the relationship between environmental exposures and child cognition. Metabolites were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance-based metabolomics in pregnant women from a population-derived birth cohort. Child cognition was measured at age 2 years. In 662 mother-child pairs, elevated inflammatory markers (ß = -2.62; 95% CI -4.10, -1.15; P = 0.0005) and lower omega-3 fatty acid-related metabolites (ß = 0.49; 95% CI 0.09, 0.88; P = 0.02) in the mother were associated with lower child cognition and partially mediated the association between lower child cognition and multiple risk factors common to socioeconomic disadvantage. Modifying maternal prenatal metabolic pathways related to inflammation and omega-3 fatty acids may offset the adverse associations between prenatal risk factors related to socioeconomic disadvantage and low child cognition.

Supplemental prophylactic intervention for chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis (SPICE) trial: Protocol for a multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trial.

AIM: There is significant recent interest in the role of ginger root (Zingiber officinale) as an adjuvant therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea. The supplemental prophylactic intervention for chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis (SPICE) trial aims to assess the efficacy by reduced incidence and severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and enhanced quality of life, safety and cost effectiveness of a standardised adjuvant ginger root supplement in adults undergoing single-day moderate-to-highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS: Multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial with two parallel arms and 1:1 allocation. The target sample size is n = 300. The intervention comprises four capsules of ginger root (totalling 60 mg of active gingerols/day), commencing the day of chemotherapy and continuing for five days during chemotherapy cycles 1 to 3. The primary outcome is chemotherapy-induced nausea-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include nutrition status; anticipatory, acute and delayed nausea and vomiting; fatigue; depression and anxiety; global quality of life; health service use and costs; adverse events; and adherence. RESULTS: During the five-month recruitment period from October 2017 to April 2018 at site A only, a total of n = 33 participants (n = 18 female) have been enrolled in the SPICE trial. Recruitment is expected to commence at Site B in May 2018. CONCLUSIONS: The trial is designed to meet research gaps and could provide evidence to recommend specific dosing regimens as an adjuvant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention and management.

Clinical and economic outcomes of nurse-led services in the ambulatory care setting: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing burden of chronic and age-related diseases, and the rapidly increasing number of patients receiving ambulatory or outpatient-based care, nurse-led services have been suggested as one solution to manage increasing demand on the health system as they aim to reduce waiting times, resources, and costs while maintaining patient safety and enhancing satisfaction. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review were to assess the clinical effectiveness, economic outcomes and key implementation characteristics of nurse-led services in the ambulatory care setting. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted using the standard Cochrane Collaboration methodology and was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. DATA SOURCES: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE EBSCO, CINAHL EBSCO, and PsycINFO Ovid (from inception to April 2016). REVIEW METHODS: Data were extracted and appraisal undertaken. We included randomised controlled trials; quasi-randomised controlled trials; controlled and non-controlled before-and-after studies that compared the effects of nurse-led services in the ambulatory or community care setting with an alternative model of care or standard care. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies of 180,308 participants were included in this review. Of the 16 studies that measured and reported on health-related quality of life outcomes, the majority of studies (n = 13) reported equivocal outcomes; with three studies demonstrating superior outcomes and one demonstrating inferior outcomes in comparison with physician-led and standard care. Nurse-led care demonstrated either equivalent or better outcomes for a number of outcomes including symptom burden, self-management and behavioural outcomes, disease-specific indicators, satisfaction and perception of quality of life, and health service use. Benefits of nurse-led services remain inconclusive in terms of economic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led care is a safe and feasible model of care for consideration across a number of ambulatory care settings. With appropriate training and support provided, nurse-led care is able to produce at least equivocal outcomes or at times better outcomes in terms of health-related quality of life compared to physician-led care or standard care for managing chronic conditions. There is a lack of high quality economic evaluations for nurse-led services, which is essential for guiding the decision making of health policy makers. Key factors such as education and qualification of the nurse; self-management support; resources available for the nurse; prescribing capabilities; and evaluation using appropriate outcome should be carefully considered for future planning of nurse-led services.