Exploring mechanisms of change in the metacognitive training for depression.

The Metacognitive Training for Depression (D-MCT) is a highly structured group therapy that has been shown to be effective in reducing depressive symptoms. First evidence suggests that need for control represents a mechanism of change. However, more research is needed to evaluate the mode of action of each module and identify predictors of treatment response. Two sequential studies (one naturalistic pilot study [study I, N = 45] and one randomized controlled trial [study II, N = 32]) were conducted to evaluate the session-specific effects and predictors of D-MCT in patients with depression. The D-MCT was conducted over eight weeks, and patients answered a questionnaire on dysfunctional beliefs (e.g., negative filter) and depressive symptoms (e.g., lack of energy, self-esteem) before and after each session. Linear mixed-effects models showed that several dysfunctional beliefs and symptoms improved over the course of the treatment; three modules were able to evoke within-session effects, but no between-session effects were found. The improvement in lack of energy in one module was identified as a relevant predictor in study I via lasso regression but was not replicated in study II. Exploratory analyses revealed further predictors that warrant replication in future studies. The identified predictors were inconclusive when the two studies were compared, which may be explained by the different instruments administered. Even so, the results may be used to revise questionnaires and improve the intervention.

Is there an association between depression, anxiety disorders and COVID-19 severity and mortality? A multicenter retrospective cohort study conducted in 50 hospitals in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate associations between depression and anxiety disorder and the risk of COVID-19 severity and mortality in patients treated in large hospitals in Germany. METHODS: This retrospective study was based on anonymized electronic medical data from 50 public healthcare service hospitals across Germany. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to study associations between depression, anxiety and mechanical ventilation and mortality due to COVID adjusted for age, sex, time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and pre-defined co-diagnoses. RESULTS: Of 28,311 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, 1970 (6.9%) had a diagnosis of depression and 369 (1.3%) had a diagnosis of anxiety disorder prior to contracting COVID-19. While multivariable logistic regression models did not indicate any association between depression diagnosis and the risk of mechanical ventilation, depression was associated with a decreased risk of mortality (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.53-0.94). There was no association between anxiety disorders and risk of mortality, but there was a strong positive association between anxiety disorders and the risk of mechanical ventilation (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.35-3.10). CONCLUSION: In the present study, depression and anxiety disorder diagnoses were not associated with increased COVID-19 mortality. Anxiety disorder was strongly associated with an increased risk of mechanical ventilation. Further studies are needed to clarify how depression and anxiety disorders may influence COVID-19 severity and mortality.

Side effects of the metacognitive training for depression compared to a cognitive remediation training in patients with depression.

Although awareness of side effects over the course of psychotherapy is growing, side effects are still not always reported. The purpose of the present study was to examine side effects in a randomized controlled trial comparing Metacognitive Training for Depression (D-MCT) and a cognitive remediation training in patients with depression. 84 patients were randomized to receive either D-MCT or cognitive remediation training (MyBrainTraining) for 8 weeks. Side effects were assessed after the completion of each intervention (post) using the Short Inventory of the Assessment of Negative Effects (SIAN) and again 6 months later (follow-up) using the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ). D-MCT and MyBrainTraining did not differ significantly in the number of side effects. At post assessment, 50% of the D-MCT group and 59% of the MyBrainTraining group reported at least one side effect in the SIAN. The most frequently reported side effect was disappointment in subjective benefit of study treatment. At follow-up, 52% reported at least one side effect related to MyBrainTraining, while 34% reported at least one side effect related to the D-MCT in the NEQ. The most frequently reported side effects fell into the categories of "symptoms" and "quality". Our NEQ version was missing one item due to a technical error. Also, allegiance effects should be considered. The sample size resulted in low statistical power. The relatively tolerable number of side effects suggests D-MCT and MyBrainTraining are safe and well-received treatment options for people with depression. Future studies should also measure negative effects to corroborate our results.

Monitoring somatic symptoms in patients with mental disorders: Sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference of the Somatic Symptom Scale - 8 (SSS-8).

OBJECTIVE: The SSS-8 is a brief questionnaire for the assessment of somatic symptom burden. This study examines its sensitivity to change and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patients with mental disorders. METHOD: 55 outpatients with mental disorders completed the SSS-8 and measures of anxiety, depression, and disability before and after receiving treatment. Effect sizes and correlations between the change scores were calculated. The MCID was estimated using a one standard error of measurement threshold and the change in disability as an external criterion. RESULTS: There was a medium decline in somatic symptom burden for the complete sample (n=55, dz=0.53) and a large decline in a subgroup with very high somatic symptom burden at baseline (n=11, dz=0.94). Decreases in somatic symptom burden were associated with decreases in anxiety (r=0.68, p<0.001), depression (r=0.62, p<0.001) and disability (r=0.51, p<0.001). The MCID was estimated as a 3-point decrease. CONCLUSION: The SSS-8 is sensitive to change. A 3-point decrease reflects a clinically important improvement. Due to its brevity and sound psychometric properties, the SSS-8 is useful for monitoring somatic symptom burden.

Elucidating the black box from stress to paranoia.

Sensitivity to stress has long been implicated in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia. It remains unclear, however, which exact mechanisms underlie the progression from vulnerability to psychotic breakdown. For the present study, we hypothesized that the induction of stress would aggravate cognitive biases in schizophrenia. A total of 20 acute and remitted schizophrenia patients and 15 healthy controls were tested with parallel versions of cognitive biases paradigms under 2 laboratory conditions: stress (loud noise, 75 dB) vs no-stress. In the course of both conditions, participants had to fill out a questionnaire that assessed depressive, obsessive-compulsive, and paranoid symptoms. For the patients with acute psychotic symptoms, paranoid but not other psychiatric symptoms were elevated under stress in comparison with no-stress. In contrast, stress somewhat diminished subclinical paranoid symptoms in healthy participants. Jumping to conclusions was evident in schizophrenia under both conditions but significantly more pronounced when stress was applied first in the acute group. A tendency emerged in both acute and remitted patients to attribute events to other people under stress which was not seen in healthy subjects. The present study may serve as a starting point for further research investigating how stress translates vulnerability into acute paranoia and to pinpoint cognitive risk factors that can be modified by treatment.