Comparison of the affective symptomatology between liver transplant recipients and patients with multiple sclerosis considering their functional impairment.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the affective symptomatology in two medical conditions under immunotherapy (cadaveric liver transplantation [G1] and multiple sclerosis [G2]), considering their functional impairment, and to assess the clinical significance of the results regarding a representative age-adjusted sample of the general Spanish population (G3). METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, 164 patients (82 per clinical group) were selected, matched for gender, and homogenized regarding age and functional impairment according to the Physical functioning subscale from the SF-36 Health Survey. The criterion variables were the Mental health and Role-emotional SF-36 subscales and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An analysis of covariance was conducted, controlling for age and the Physical functioning score as covariates. Cohen's d was reported as an effect size index and to analyze the clinical significance regarding a representative age-adjusted sample of the general Spanish population (n = 7881). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between conditions in any affective dimension (P > .05; ds1₋2 from 0.08 to 0.30) or in the percentage of clinical cases regarding the anxious (P = .628) or depressive spectrum (P = .716). The neurological patients showed clinically significant impairment in both SF-36 subscales (ds2₋3 = 0.55 and 0.52, respectively), but transplant recipients only differed from the general population in Role-emotional (d1₋3 = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Despite having controlled for functional impairment, important deterioration in daily functioning was still found in liver recipients due to emotional problems, and no relevant differences were observed even when compared with a neurodegenerative condition such as multiple sclerosis.

Influence of acute cellular rejection and depressive symptomatology on liver transplant recipients' quality of life.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to analyze the influence of two variables (acute cellular rejection and depressive symptomatology) on liver transplant recipients' quality of life. METHODS: Using a 2 × 2 factorial design, two groups were selected: 44 patients who had acute cellular rejection and 44 patients without this medical complication. After an average of 6 years since the transplant, patients were assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the SF-36 Health Survey. Analysis of variance, t test for unpaired samples, and Cohen's d effect size index were applied. RESULTS: The presence of clinical depressive symptomatology negatively affected all dimensions of quality of life (P < .001; large effect sizes); and interactive effects between factors acute cellular rejection and depressive symptomatology were found in the dimensions role-physical (P = .049) and bodily pain (P = .017). Transplant recipients with clinical depressive symptomatology scored lower on both dimensions (role-physical, P = .110, d = 0.52, medium effect size; bodily pain, P = .001, d = 1.25, large effect size) if they had an acute cellular rejection. In contrast, if they did not exceed the clinical threshold for depressive symptomatology, there were no differences in these dimensions (role-physical, P = .239, d = -0.33, small effect size; bodily pain, P = .555, d = 0.16, null effect size) between transplant recipients with and without acute cellular rejection. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical depressive symptomatology is associated with poorer quality of life in liver transplant recipients; and the long-term differences in the dimensions role-physical and bodily pain between liver transplant recipients with and without acute cellular rejection depend on patients' mental health.

Evolution of quality of life in renal transplant recipients and patients with multiple sclerosis: a follow-up study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the evolution of quality of life in 2 medical conditions under immunotherapy (cadaveric renal transplantation [G1] and multiple sclerosis [G2]), and to assess the clinical significance of the results compared with a representative age-adjusted sample of the general Spanish population (G3). METHODS: Using a mixed design (2 × 2), the SF-36 Health Survey was administered to 60 patients with one of these clinical conditions (30 in each group; the patient group factor), matched for gender, and homogenized regarding age and working status. All renal patients had undergone transplantation 6 months before the first assessment, and all neurological patients presented a relapsing-remitting course and a mild-moderate disability level. Both patient groups were assessed a second time 6 months later (the phase factor). A mixed analysis of covariance was computed controlling for age as a covariate. Cohen's d was reported as an effect size index and to analyze the clinical significance regarding a representative age-adjusted sample of the general Spanish population (n = 5821). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between patient groups in vitality, bodily pain, social functioning, and mental health (P < .01), in which worse levels were displayed by patients with multiple sclerosis in both phases (Cohen's ds1-2 from 0.61 to 1.40). Likewise, an interactive effect was observed in physical functioning [F(1,57) = 12.93; P = .001], such that the performance of daily physical activities improved in renal recipients after 6 months, but it decreased in neurological patients. Patients with multiple sclerosis showed higher, clinically significant impairment in all SF-36 dimensions in both phases compared with renal recipients (Cohen's ds2-3 from -0.50 to -1.61), who presented clinically significant impairment in general health, role-physical, and role-emotional (Cohen's ds1-3 from -0.73 to -1.28). CONCLUSIONS: Renal transplant recipients need specialized health care 1 year after transplantation because they still display relevant impairment in daily functioning compared with the general population.

Evolution of anxious-depressive symptomatology in liver and kidney transplant recipients: hospitalization and 12-month post-transplantation phases.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the evolution (hospitalization in the transplantation unit and at 12 months post-transplantation) of anxious and depressive symptomatology in cadaveric transplant recipients as a function of type of organ implanted (liver or kidney). METHODS: Using a 2 × 2 mixed factorial design, 2 groups were selected: 34 liver transplant recipients and 41 kidney transplant recipients. Both groups were assessed in 2 phases: (1) in the transplantation unit after discharge from the intensive care unit; and (2) 12 months after discharge from the hospital following implantation surgery. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Scale for the Assessment of Social Support were administered. A mixed analysis of covariance was used to assess the influence on transplant recipients' anxious-depressive symptomatology of 2 independent factors: phase (hospitalization in the transplantation unit and at 12 months post-transplantation) and organ (liver and kidney). Perceived social support and age were included as covariates in the analyses. We also calculated d and w as effect size indexes. RESULTS: Interactive effects of the factors phase and organ were found in the variable anxiety (P = .005). Specifically, the following simple effects were significant: (1) kidney transplant recipients presented more anxious symptomatology while hospitalized in the transplantation unit than at 12 months post-transplantation (P = .001; d = 0.52; medium effect size); and (2) kidney transplant recipients presented more anxious symptomatology than liver transplant recipients while hospitalized in the transplantation unit (P = .013; d = -0.59; medium effect size). No statistically significant effect was obtained for the variable depression. CONCLUSION: Worse mental health (anxious symptoms) was associated with kidney transplant recipients but not with liver recipients while recovering from the implantation surgery in the transplantation unit.

Longitudinal study of liver transplant recipients' quality of life as a function of their perception of general health: at waiting list and at 3, 6, and 12 months post-transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the evolution (at waiting list, and at 3, 6, and 12 months post-transplantation) of quality of life of cadaveric liver transplant recipients as a function of their perception of general health. METHODS: Two groups (15 patients with better and 15 with worse self-perception of health 1 year after transplantation) were assessed at the pretransplantation and post-transplantation phases using the EuroQol (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Mixed analysis of covariance was performed with 2 factors: phase (at waiting list and at 3, 6, and 12 months post-transplantation) and perception of general health (better and worse). Cohen's d was also calculated. RESULTS: Interactive effects were found in the variables pain/discomfort (P = .010) and anxiety/depression (P = .001). The following simple effects reached large effect sizes. Transplant recipients presented more pain/discomfort when on the waiting list than at 3 months (worse self-perception, P = .022, d = 1.35; better self-perception, P = .001, d = 0.95). At 6 months (P = .001, d = -1.45) and at 12 months (P = .001, d = -1.75), transplant recipients with worse self-perception displayed more pain/discomfort. Transplant recipients with better self-perceived health showed more anxiety/depression when on the waiting list than at 3 months (P = .004, d = 1.49), at 6 months (P = .005, d = 1.48), and at 12 months (P = .001, d = 1.97). Patients with worse self-perception presented more anxiety/depression when on the waiting list than at 6 months (P = .030, d = 1.21) and 12 months compared with at 3 months (P = .011, d = -0.97) and 6 months (P = .001, d = -1.39). At 12 months, transplant recipients with worse self-perception showed more anxiety/depression (P = .001, d = -2.18). CONCLUSION: Pain/discomfort and, especially, anxiety/depression contribute to liver transplant recipients' worse general health status 1 year after transplantation.

Comparison of quality of life between two clinical conditions with immunosuppressive therapy: liver transplantation and multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare quality of life in two clinical conditions treated with immunosuppressants: cadaveric liver transplant recipients and multiple sclerosis patients. We also assessed the clinical significance of these results regarding a representative age-adjusted sample of the general Spanish population. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, the SF-36 Health Survey was used to evaluate 62 patients with these chronic conditions (31 in each group) who were matched for gender. An analysis of covariance was performed to control for the influence of time from multiple sclerosis diagnosis and liver transplantation surgery until assessment. Student t test of covariate-adjusted mean values was used as the statistical test and Cohen's d effect size index, to assess the magnitude of intergroup differences and assess clinical significance. RESULTS: Significantly worse scores were observed among the neurological patients compared with transplant recipients regarding role-physical (P = .038), general health (P = .003), vitality (P = .034), and physical functioning (P = .049), with medium effect sizes (Cohen's ds from -0.511 to -0.785). Against normative values, liver transplant recipients displayed relevant differences in all SF-36 subscales (Cohen's ds from -0.569 to -0.974) except for mental health (small effect size). Likewise, multiple sclerosis patients showed much greater differences versus the general population (Cohen's ds from -0.846 to -1.760). CONCLUSIONS: Liver transplant recipients showed better quality of life than multiple sclerosis patients (medium effect sizes) in physical quality-of-life dimensions. Interestingly, despite having controlled for time from diagnosis/transplantation, both medical conditions showed clinically significant impairments (large and medium effect sizes) in physical and psychosocial quality-of-life domains. We concluded that transplant recipients belong to a population that still requires special health care because, even after having undergone their treatment of choice, they do not achieve normal levels of biopsychosocial functioning.

Biopsychosocial functioning in liver patients of alcoholic etiology as a function of self-perceived pain level.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the biopsychosocial functioning among liver transplantation and cirrhotic patients as a function of self-perceived pain level. METHODS: We selected two groups of liver patients of the same gender (men) and disease etiology (alcoholic): there were 39 liver transplant recipients and 34 severe cirrhotic patients. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the SF-36 Health Questionnaire were used. We applied analysis of covariance, with age and model end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores as covariates to assess the influence of two independent factors: (1) group (liver transplant recipients and cirrhotic patients), and (2) self-perception of pain (mild and high). We also calculated Cohen's d as an effect size index. RESULTS: No interactive effects were found between factors group and self-perceived pain in any of the variables studied. With regard to the main effects, we found statistically significant differences in the following variables between: a) liver transplant recipients and cirrhotic patients: anxiety (P = .000), depression (P = .003), role-physical (P = .001), mental health (P = .016), general health (P = .000), vitality (P = .000), and physical functioning (P = .000); and b) liver patients with mild and high self-perceived pain: anxiety (P = .008), depression (P = .000), role-physical (P = .002), mental health (P = .000), vitality (P = .000), and physical functioning (P = .001). In all the indicated variables, with medium and large effect sizes (Cohen's ds from 0.58 to 1.64), the cirrhotic patients and patients with a high level of self-perceived pain had much poorer mental health and quality of life. CONCLUSION: Alcoholic cirrhotic male patients with a high level of self-perceived pain had the greatest biopsychosocial impairment, even exceeding the clinical threshold in the anxiety and depression scales; and the highest biopsychosocial well-being was associated with liver transplant recipients with a mild level of self-perceived pain.

Coping strategies in liver patients as a function of relatives' anxiety level.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differences in the coping strategies used by liver patients during the pretransplantation phase were a function of their relatives' level of anxiety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed 75 pre-liver transplantation patients and 75 relatives (one per patient). To assess relatives' anxiety status, we used the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Questionnaire of Coping with Stress in Cancer Patients (CAEPO) to study patients' coping strategies. Three subgroups of relatives were established as a function of their scores on the HADS anxiety subscale: normal anxiety (G(1)), dubious anxiety (G2), and clinical anxiety (G(3)). To verify intergroup differences in the coping strategies used by the patients, we used the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis H test. We also performed pairwise comparisons with nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test (with Bonferroni's correction) and Cohen's d as an effect size index. RESULTS: Focusing on the most relevant effect sizes, the pairwise contrasts indicated the following differences: a) normal anxiety (G(1)) and dubious anxiety (G(2)): seeking social support (d = 0.502); b) normal anxiety (G(1)) and clinical anxiety (G(3)): coping and active fighting (d = 0.607), self-control and emotional control (d = 0.658), and seeking social support (d = 0.944); and c) dubious anxiety (G(2)) and clinical anxiety (G(3)): coping and active fighting (d = 0.743), self-control and emotional control (d = 0.722), and seeking social support (d = 0.515). CONCLUSION: In general, during the pre-liver transplantation study, the liver patients whose relatives showed clinical levels of anxiety used these three healthy coping strategies to a lesser extent: coping and active fighting, self-control and emotional control, and seeking social support.

Affective status in liver transplant recipients as a function of self-perception of general health.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether there were differences with regard to anxiety and depressive symptomatology between liver transplant recipients with better (G(1)) versus worse (G(2)) self-perceptions of general health compared with pre-liver transplantation cirrhotic patients (G(3)). METHODS: The groups of patients included 168 recipients including 85 and 83 with better or worse self-perceptions of general health, respectively, and 75 cirrhotic pre-liver transplantation patients. For the psychological assessment we used the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the general health dimension of the SF-36 Health Questionnaire. The following analyses were used: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc pairwise comparisons by means of Tukey's test and Cohen's d, an effect size index. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed among the three groups for the variables of anxiety (P = .000) and depression (P = .000). Specifically, liver transplant recipients with better self-perceptions of general health displayed lower scores (better mental health) compared with those showing worse self-perceptions or cirrhotic patients. There were no differences between the latter two groups. The differences in these variables were relevant (large effect sizes) for anxiety (Cohen's d(1-2) = -1.075, Cohen's d(1-3) = -1.155) and for depression (Cohen's d(1-2) = -1.145, Cohen's d(1-3) = -1.158). CONCLUSION: The anxious-depressive status was not necessarily better among liver transplant recipients. There was great variability among them as a function of self-perceived general health. Transplant recipients with worse self-perception of general health presented the same anxiety-depressive levels as patients with severe liver disease in the pretransplantation phase; the latter groups reach the clinical threshold on the depression scale.

Relatives' mental health during the liver transplantation process.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the mental health of relatives of liver transplant patients during the three phases: pretransplantation, waiting list, and posttransplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This follow-up study used the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to assess the relatives of 35 liver transplant patients (one relative for each patient). The anxiety-depression status was compared across the three liver transplant phases: pretransplant study (G(1)), from the first to the third month after admission to the waiting list (G(2)), and the 3 months after liver transplantation (G(3)). Student t test for paired samples was used for statistical analysis, and Cohen d calculated as an effect size index. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed (P = .000) among the three phases in anxiety and depression variables. In both, the greatest affective symptomatology corresponded to the phases prior to the liver transplantation (G(1) and G(2)) and the lowest in the post-liver transplant stage (G(3)). Relevant differences (large effect size) were noted between pre- and posttransplant phases in both HADS subscales: anxiety (Cohen d(1-3) = 1.197; Cohen d(2-3) = 0.817) and depression (Cohen d(1-3) = 1.228; Cohen' d(2-3) = 1.239). CONCLUSION: Relatives show poorer mental health during the phases prior to liver transplantation compared with the posttransplantation.