A systematic review and meta-regression of the prevalence and incidence of perinatal depression.

BACKGROUND: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of the disease burden for women of childbearing age, but the burden of MDD attributable to perinatal depression is not yet known. There has been little effort to date to systematically review available literature and produce global estimates of prevalence and incidence of perinatal depression. Enhanced understanding will help to guide resource allocation for screening and treatment. METHODS: A systematic literature review using the databases PsycINFO and PubMed returned 140 usable prevalence estimates from 96 studies. A random-effects meta-regression was performed to determine sources of heterogeneity in prevalence estimates between studies and to guide a subsequent random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: The meta-regression explained 31.1% of the variance in prevalence reported between studies. Adjusting for the effects of all other variables in the model, prevalence derived using symptom scales was significantly higher than prevalence derived using diagnostic instruments (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-2.0). Additionally, prevalence was significantly higher in women from low and middle income countries compared to women from high income countries (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4-2.2). The overall pooled prevalence was 11.9% of women during the perinatal period (95% CI 11.4-12.5). There were insufficient data to calculate pooled incidence. LIMITATIONS: Studies in low income countries were especially scarce in this review, demonstrating a need for more epidemiological research in those regions. CONCLUSIONS: Perinatal depression appears to impose a higher burden on women in low- and middle-income countries. This review contributes significantly to the epidemiological literature on the disorder.

Clozapine users in Australia: their characteristics and experiences of care based on data from the 2010 National Survey of High Impact Psychosis.

AIMS: Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment refractory schizophrenia. However, descriptions of the mental health and comorbidity profile and care experiences of people on clozapine in routine clinical settings are scarce. Using data from the 2010 Australian Survey of High Impact Psychosis, we aimed to examine the proportion of people using clozapine, and to compare clozapine users with other antipsychotic users on demographic, mental health, adverse drug reaction, polypharmacy and treatment satisfaction variables. METHODS: Data describing 1049 people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, who reported taking any antipsychotic medication in the previous 4 weeks, were drawn from a representative Australian survey of people with psychotic disorders in contact with mental health services in the previous 12 months. We compared participants taking clozapine (n = 257, 22.4%) with those taking other antipsychotic medications, on a range of demographic, clinical and treatment-related indicators. RESULTS: One quarter of participants were on clozapine. Of participants with a chronic course of illness, only one third were on clozapine. After adjusting for diagnosis and illness chronicity, participants taking clozapine had significantly lower odds of current alcohol, cannabis and other drug use despite similar lifetime odds. Metabolic syndrome and diabetes were more common among people taking clozapine; chronic pain was less common. Psychotropic polypharmacy did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with international evidence of clozapine underutilisation, a large number of participants with chronic illness and high symptom burden were not taking clozapine. The lower probabilities of current substance use and chronic pain among clozapine users warrant further study.