Depression in Diabetic Patients: What Is the Link With Eating Disorders? Results of a Study in a Representative Sample of Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

Background and Purpose: Comorbidity between diabetes and depression, and diabetes and eating disorders (ED) conveys significant diagnostic, clinical and therapeutic implications. The present study was conducted on a sample of adult outpatients affected by Type 1 Diabetes (T1DM) to assess lifetime prevalence of ED; current prevalence of depression and Disturbed Eating Behaviors (DEB) and their impact on glycemic control. We hypothesized that patients with depression would have higher rates of lifetime ED and current DEB. We hypothesized a significant and independent association between DEB and the prevalence of depression. Materials and Methods: The study was carried out using a cross-sectional design in a sample of 172 diabetic patients with T1DM aged from 17 to 55 years. Lifetime prevalence of ED according to DSM-5 criteria was assessed by means of the Module H modified of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorder (SCID-I). The following questionnaires were used: Beck Depression Inventory-IA version (BDI-IA) and Diabetes Eating Problems Survey-Revised (DEPS-R), to assess respectively the current presence of depression and DEB. Socio-demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were also collected. Results: High rates of depression (35.5%) and DEB (19.2%) were observed in our sample of 172 adult outpatients with T1DM. Lifetime history of ED was present in 20.9% of the sample and was more frequently diagnosed in patients with current depression (34.4% vs. 13.9%, p = 0.002). Higher levels of DEB at DEPS-R significantly increased the odds of depression (adjOR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.03-1.15; p = 0.003). The presence of DEB was associated with poor glycemic control. On the other hand, no association was found between depression and metabolic compensation. Conclusion: Adult patients with T1DM and depression should be screened for ED and DEB. Treating DEB could positively impact both mood and glycemic control in this population. Further studies should be carried out on a larger patient population using a longitudinal design and an accurate method of evaluation to explore the complex relationship between diabetes, depression, ED, and DEB. Future research should investigate treatment strategies for DEB in T1DM patients and their impact on both psychopathological and metabolic outcomes.

Assessment of eating disorders with the diabetes eating problems survey - revised (DEPS-R) in a representative sample of insulin-treated diabetic patients: a validation study in Italy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to evaluate in a sample of insulin-treated diabetic patients, with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, the psychometric characteristics of the Italian version of the DEPS-R scale, a diabetes-specific self-report questionnaire used to analyze disordered eating behaviors. METHODS: The study was performed on 211 consecutive insulin-treated diabetic patients attending two specialist centers. Lifetime prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) according to DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria were assessed by means of the Module H of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM IV Axis I Disorder and the Module H modified, according to DSM-5 criteria. The following questionnaires were administered: DEPS-R and the Eating Disorder Inventory - 3 (EDI-3). Test/retest reproducibility was assessed on a subgroup of 70 patients. The factorial structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of DEPS-R were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 21.8% of the sample met criteria for at least one DSM-5 diagnosis of ED. A "clinical risk" of ED was observed in 13.3% of the sample. Females displayed higher scores at DEPS-R, a higher percentage of at least one diagnosis of ED and a higher clinical risk for ED. A high level of reproducibility and homogeneity of the scale were revealed. A significant correlation was detected between DEPS-R and the 3 ED risk scales of EDI-3. CONCLUSIONS: The data confirmed the overall reliability and validity of the scale. In view of the significance and implications of EDs in diabetic patients, it should be conducted a more extensive investigation of the phenomenon by means of evaluation instruments of demonstrated validity and reliability.

Clinical Global Impression-severity score as a reliable measure for routine evaluation of remission in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders.

AIMS: This study aimed to compare the performance of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) symptom severity criteria established by the Remission in Schizophrenia Working Group (RSWG) with criteria based on Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity score. The 6-month duration criterion was not taken into consideration. METHODS: A convenience sample of 112 chronic psychotic outpatients was examined. Symptomatic remission was evaluated according to RSWG severity criterion and to a severity criterion indicated by the overall score obtained at CGI-Schizophrenia (CGI-SCH) rating scale (≤3) (CGI-S). RESULTS: Clinical remission rates of 50% and 49.1%, respectively, were given by RSWG and CGI-S, with a significant level of agreement between the two criteria in identifying remitted and non-remitted cases. Mean scores at CGI-SCH and PANSS scales were significantly higher among remitters, independent of the remission criteria adopted. Measures of cognitive functioning were largely independent of clinical remission evaluated according to both RSWG and CGI-S. When applying RSWG and CGI-S criteria, the rates of overall good functioning yielded by Personal and Social Performance scale (PSP) were 32.1% and 32.7%, respectively, while the mean scores at PSP scale differed significantly between remitted and non-remitted patients, independent of criteria adopted. The proportion of patients judged to be in a state of well-being on Social Well-Being Under Neuroleptics-Short Version scale (SWN-K) were, respectively, 66.1% and 74.5% among remitters according to RSWG and CGI-S; the mean scores at the SWN scale were significantly higher only among remitters according to CGI-S criteria. CONCLUSIONS: CGI severity criteria may represent a valid and user-friendly alternative for use in identifying patients in remission, particularly in routine clinical practice.

Long-term outcome of schizoaffective disorder. Are there any differences with respect to schizophrenia?

BACKGROUND: A number of studies suggest that the clinical characteristics and long-term outcome of schizoaffective patients closely resemble those observed in schizophrenia when cases are diagnosed according to DSM criteria. The primary aim was to compare remission and recovery rates in a cohort of chronic schizoaffective and schizophrenic outpatients. METHODS: A sample of 102 consecutive outpatients, 46 affected by schizophrenia (45.1%, mean age 44.22±9.97 years) and 66 affected by schizoaffective disorder (54.9%, mean age 43.00±9.07 years) was examined in the study. Personal data and psychiatric history were collected according to AMDP system; premorbid assessment was performed by means of PAS. Axis I and II psychiatric diagnosis was confirmed by means of SCID-I and II. Psychopathological status was evaluated by means of PANSS and CGI-SCH scales; neuropsychological evaluation was performed by means of BACS and MMSE; Functioning, subjective well-being and quality of life were respectively evaluated by means of PSP, SWN and WHOQoL-bref. RESULTS: Schizophrenic and schizoaffective patients investigated were characterized by an overlapping age at onset, mean duration of illness, mean duration of untreated psychosis and common sociodemographic characteristics; subjects' cross-sectional psychopathological and neurocognitive profiles were remarkably similar. However, schizoaffective patients are more frequently of the female gender, showing a better social premorbid adjustment and a somewhat more complicated clinical course in terms of more frequent hospitalizations and suicidality; outcome measures are substantially better among schizoaffective patients: rates of clinical remission were 43.5% and 54.5% in schizophrenic and schizoaffective patients, respectively; 13% and 25.8% of schizophrenic and schizoaffective patients, respectively, were considered as functionally remitted; recovery was observed in 6.5% and 22.7% of schizophrenic and schizoaffective patients, respectively; the majority of patients, both schizophrenic and schizoaffective, were taking antipsychotics, mainly atypical, although a significantly higher proportion of schizoaffective subjects were on mood stabilizers, antidepressants and benzodiazepines. CONCLUSION: Compared to schizophrenic patients, DSM-IV-TR schizoaffective patients may be considered as a subgroup of psychotic patients displaying several specific characteristics in terms of clinical course, clinical and functional outcome and treatment.