Patterns of association of chronic medical conditions and major depression.

AIMS: Age and sex-related patterns of association between medical conditions and major depressive episodes (MDE) are important for understanding disease burden, anticipating clinical needs and for formulating etiological hypotheses. General population estimates are especially valuable because they are not distorted by help-seeking behaviours. However, even large population surveys often deliver inadequate precision to adequately describe such patterns. In this study, data from a set of national surveys were pooled to increase precision, supporting more precise characterisation of these associations. METHODS: The data were from a series of Canadian national surveys. These surveys used comparable sampling strategies and assessment methods for MDE. Chronic medical conditions were assessed using items asking about professionally diagnosed medical conditions. Individual-level meta-analysis methods were used to generate unadjusted, stratified and adjusted prevalence odds ratios for 11 chronic medical conditions. Random effects models were used in the meta-analysis. A procedure incorporating rescaled replicate bootstrap weights was used to produce 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Overall, conditions characterised by pain and inflammation tended to show stronger associations with MDE. The meta-analysis uncovered two previously undescribed patterns of association. Effect modification by age was observed in varying degrees for most conditions. This effect was most prominent for high blood pressure and cancer. Stronger associations were found in younger age categories. Migraine was an exception: the strength of association increased with age, especially in men. Second, especially for conditions predominantly affecting older age groups (arthritis, diabetes, back pain, cataracts, effects of stroke and heart disease) confounding by age was evident. For each condition, age adjustment resulted in strengthening of the associations. In addition to migraine, two conditions displayed distinctive patterns of association. Age adjusted odds ratios for thyroid disease reflected a weak association that was only significant in women. In epilepsy, a similar strength of association was found irrespective of age or sex. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of MDE is elevated in association with most chronic conditions, but especially those characterised by inflammation and pain. Effect modification by age may reflect greater challenges or difficulties encountered by young people attempting to cope with these conditions. This pattern, however, does not apply to migraine or epilepsy. Neurobiological changes associated with these conditions may offset coping-related effects, such that the association does not weaken with age. Prominent confounding by age for several conditions suggests that age adjustments are necessary in order to avoid underestimating the strength of these associations.

Seasonal variation in major depressive episode prevalence in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper is to describe variation, over the months of the year, in major depressive episode (MDE) prevalence. This is an important aspect of the epidemiological description of MDE, and one that has received surprisingly little attention in the literature. Evidence of seasonal variation in MDE prevalence has been weak and contradictory. Most studies have sought to estimate the prevalence of seasonal affective disorder using cut-points applied to scales assessing mood seasonality rather than MDE. This approach does not align with modern classification in which seasonal depression is a diagnostic subtype of major depression rather than a distinct category. Also, some studies may have lacked power to detect seasonal differences. We addressed these limitations by examining the month-specific occurrence of conventionally defined MDE and by pooling data from large epidemiological surveys to enhance precision in the analysis. METHOD: Data from two national survey programmes (the National Population Health Survey and the Canadian Community Health Survey) were used, providing ten datasets collected between 1996 and 2013, together including over 500,000. These studies assessed MDE using a short form version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) for major depression, with one exception being a 2012 survey that used a non-abbreviated version of the CIDI. The proportion of episodes occurring in each month was evaluated using items from the diagnostic modules and statistical methods addressing complex design features of these trials. Overall month-specific pooled estimates and associated confidence intervals were estimated using random effects meta-analysis and a gradient was assessed using a meta-regression model that included a quadratic term. RESULTS: There was considerable sampling variability when the month-specific proportions were estimated from individual survey datasets. However, across the various datasets, there was sufficient homogeneity to justify the pooling of these estimated proportions, producing large gains in precision. Seasonal variation was clearly evident in the pooled data. The highest proportion of episodes occurred in December, January and February and the lowest proportions occurred in June, July and August. The proportion of respondents reporting MDE in January was 70% higher than August, suggesting an association with implications for health policy. The pattern persisted with stratification for age group, sex and latitude. CONCLUSIONS: Seasonal effects in MDE may have been obscured by small sample sizes in prior studies. In Canada, MDE has clear seasonal variation, yet this is not addressed in the planning of services. These results suggest that availability of depression treatment should be higher in the winter than the summer months.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions for depression and anxiety in persons with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are common in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS), and adversely affect fatigue, medication adherence, and quality of life. Though effective treatments for depression and anxiety exist in the general population, their applicability in the MS population has not been definitively established. OBJECTIVE: To determine the overall effect of psychological and pharmacological treatments for depression or anxiety in persons with MS. METHODS: We searched the Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES Full Text, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus databases using systematic review methodology from database inception until March 25, 2015. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence. We included controlled clinical trials reporting on the effect of pharmacological or psychological interventions for depression or anxiety in a sample of persons with MS. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) and pooled using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 1753 abstracts screened, 21 articles reporting on 13 unique clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. Depression severity improved in nine psychological trials of depression treatment (N=307; SMD: -0.45 (95%CI: -0.74, -0.16)). The severity of depression also improved in three pharmacological trials of depression treatment (SMD: -0.63 (N=165; 95%CI: -1.07, -0.20)). For anxiety, only a single trial examined psychological therapy for injection phobia and reported no statistically significant improvement. CONCLUSION: Pharmacological and psychological treatments for depression were effective in reducing depressive symptoms in MS. The data are insufficient to determine the effectiveness of treatments for anxiety.

Comorbidity is associated with pain-related activity limitations in multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities are common in multiple sclerosis (MS). The high prevalence of pain in MS is well-established but the influence of comorbidities on pain, specifically, pain-related interference in activity is not. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between comorbidity and pain in MS. METHODS: We recruited 949 consecutive patients with definite MS from four Canadian centres. Participants completed the Health Utilities Index (HUI-Mark III) and a validated comorbidity questionnaire at 3 visits over 2 years. The HUI's pain scale was dichotomized into two groups: those with/without pain that disrupts normal activities. We used logistic regression to assess the association of pain with each comorbidity individually at baseline and over time. RESULTS: The incidence of disruptive pain over two years was 31.1 per 100 persons. Fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, migraine, chronic lung disease, depression, anxiety, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia were associated with disruptive pain (p<0.006). Individual-level effects on the presence of worsening pain were seen for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR]: 1.50 95% CI: 1.08-2.09), anxiety (OR: 1.49 95% CI: 1.07-2.08), and autoimmune thyroid disease (OR: 1.40 95% CI: 1.00-1.97). CONCLUSION: Comorbidity is associated with pain in persons with MS. Closer examination of these associations may provide guidance for better management of this disabling symptom in MS.

The role of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of incidence and prevalence studies in neuroepidemiology.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the incidence and prevalence of neurological conditions are important methods of quantifying the burden and risk of disease. METHODS: The rigorous methodology required in order to minimize publication bias, account for study heterogeneity, and variation in study quality are described. When appropriate, a meta-analysis is a powerful statistical tool that can help synthesize a vast literature quantitatively, taking into account study heterogeneity. As the epidemiology of neurological conditions continue to be widely studied internationally, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become essential. RESULTS: If not conducted carefully, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in neuroepidemiology may lead to erroneous conclusions. It is important to consider various methodological, clinical and statistical factors at all stages of the review and analysis process. Detailed documentation should be kept to assist in the reporting process. CONCLUSIONS: Published reporting standards should be consulted when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the incidence and prevalence of neurological conditions, though reporting standards specific to neuroepidemiology are urgently needed.