Implications of depression in rheumatoid arthritis: do subtypes really matter?

OBJECTIVE: To examine depressive disorders and health status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), controlling for potential confounds. METHOD: Subjects (n = 426) completed measures of depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale [CES-D]) and health status (Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 [AIMS2]), via cross-sectional survey. Subjects (n = 299) with few depressive symptoms (CES-D < or = 10) were not evaluated further. Subjects with CES-D > or = 11 were interviewed using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders to diagnose major depressive disorder (MDD; n = 46), dysthymic disorder (DD; n = 21), or minor depressive disorder (MND; n = 18). RESULTS: Regression analyses examined differences between the depressive disorders on AIMS2 subscales. Health status scores were similar between the depressive disorder subcategories; significant differences were found between MDD and MND on AIMS2 Physical scores and MDD and DD on AIMS2 Symptom scores. CONCLUSION: Regarding health status, presence of depression itself seems to overshadow differences between depression subtypes; antidepressant treatments/referrals for persons with concomitant RA and any depressive disorder subtype appear warranted.

A confirmatory factor analysis of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in rheumatoid arthritis patients: additional evidence for a four-factor model.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the factor structure of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in a sample of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), testing all of the alternative models suggested by the previous evidence. METHODS: The CES-D was administered to a group of RA patients (n = 685) during a structured telephone interview. The telephone interview was repeated 6 months later (n = 537) and 12 months later (n = 453). Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test alternative models. RESULTS: The correlated 4-factor model and the second-order 4-factor model were the best fitting models. CONCLUSION: The factor structure of the CES-D previously found in the general population was replicated in an RA sample. The results are consistent with previous evidence of criterion contamination in the CES-D when used in an RA sample and provide support for the view that a single summary score may not be the most informative index of the CES-D.