Econstudentlog

Alcohol and Aging (II)

I gave the book 3 stars on goodreads.

As is usual for publications of this nature, the book includes many chapters that cover similar topics and so the coverage can get a bit repetitive if you’re reading it from cover to cover the way I did; most of the various chapter authors obviously didn’t read the other contributions included in the book, and as each chapter is meant to stand on its own you end up with a lot of chapter introductions which cover very similar topics. If you can disregard such aspects it’s a decent book, which covers a wide variety of topics.

Below I have added some observations from some of the chapters of the book which I did not cover in my first post.

It is widely accepted that consuming heavy amounts of alcohol and binge drinking are detrimental to the brain. Animal studies that have examined the anatomical changes that occur to the brain as a consequence of consuming alcohol indicate that heavy alcohol consumption and binge drinking leads to the death of existing neurons [10, 11] and prevents production of new neurons [12, 13]. […] While animal studies indicate that consuming even moderate amounts of alcohol is detrimental to the brain, the evidence from epidemiological studies is less clear. […] Epidemiological studies that have examined the relationship between late life alcohol consumption and cognition have frequently reported that older adults who consume light to moderate amounts of alcohol are less likely to develop dementia and have higher cognitive functioning compared to older adults who do not consume alcohol. […] In a meta-analysis of 15 prospective cohort studies, consuming light to moderate amounts of alcohol was associated with significantly lower relative risk (RR) for Alzheimer’s disease (RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.61–0.86), vascular dementia (RR=0.75, 95% CI=0.57–0.98), and any type of dementia (RR=0.74, 95% CI=0.61–0.91), but not cognitive decline (RR=0.28, 95 % CI=0.03–2.83) [31]. These findings are consistent with a previous meta-analysis by Peters et al. [33] in which light to moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a decreased risk for dementia (RR=0.63, 95 % CI=0.53–0.75) and Alzheimer’s disease (RR=0.57, 95 % CI=0.44–0.74), but not vascular dementia (RR=0.82, 95% CI=0.50–1.35) or cognitive decline RR=0.89, 95% CI=0.67–1.17). […] Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been used to describe the prodromal stage of Alzheimer’s disease […]. There is no strong evidence to suggest that consuming alcohol is protective against MCI [39, 40] and several studies have reported non-significant findings [41–43].”

The majority of research on the relationship between alcohol consumption and cognitive outcomes has focused on the amount of alcohol consumed during old age, but there is a growing body of research that has examined the relationship between alcohol consumption during middle age and cognitive outcomes several years or decades later. The evidence from this area of research is mixed with some studies not detecting a significant relationship [17, 58, 59], while others have reported that light to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with preserved cognition [60] and decreased risk for cognitive impairment [31, 61, 62]. […] Several epidemiological studies have reported that light to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a decreased risk for stroke, diabetes, and heart disease [36, 84, 85]. Similar to the U-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia, heavy alcohol consumption has been associated with poor health [86, 87]. The decreased risk for several metabolic and vascular health conditions for alcohol consumers has been attributed to antioxidants [54], greater concentrations of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in the bloodstream [88], and reduced blood clot formation [89]. Stroke, diabetes, heart disease, and related conditions have all been associated with lower cognitive functioning during old age [90, 91]. The reduced prevalence of metabolic and vascular health conditions among light to moderate alcohol consumers may contribute to the decreased risk for dementia and cognitive decline for older adults who consume alcohol. A limitation of the hypothesis that the reduced risk for dementia among light and moderate alcohol consumers is conferred through the reduced prevalence of adverse health conditions associated with dementia is the possibility that this relationship is confounded by reverse causality. Alcohol consumption decreases with advancing age and adults may reduce their alcohol consumption in response to the onset of adverse health conditions […] the higher prevalence of dementia and lower cognitive functioning among abstainers may be due in part to their worse health rather than their alcohol consumption.”

A limitation of large cohort studies is that subjects who choose not to participate or are unable to participate are often less healthy than those who do participate. Non-response bias becomes more pronounced with age because only subjects who have survived to old age and are healthy enough to participate are observed. Studies on alcohol consumption and cognition are sensitive to non-response bias because light and moderate drinkers who are not healthy enough to participate in the study will not be observed. Adults who survive to old age despite consuming very high amounts of alcohol represent an even more select segment of the general population because they may have genetic, behavioral, health, social, or other factors that protect them against the negative effects of heavy alcohol consumption. As a result, the analytic sample of epidemiological studies is more likely to be comprised of “healthy” drinkers, which biases results in favor of finding a positive effect of light to moderate alcohol consumption for cognition and health in general. […] The incidence of Alzheimer’s disease doubles every 5 years after 65 years of age [94] and nearly 40% of older adults aged 85 and over are diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease [7]. The relatively old age of onset for most dementia cases means the observed protective effect of light to moderate alcohol consumption for dementia may be due to alcohol consumers being more likely to die or drop out of a study as a result of their alcohol consumption before they develop dementia. This bias may be especially strong for heavy alcohol consumers. Not properly accounting for death as a competing outcome has been observed to artificially increase the risk of dementia among older adults with diabetes [95] and the effect that death and other competing outcomes may have on the relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia risk is unclear. […] The majority of epidemiological studies that have studied the relationship between alcohol consumption and cognition treat abstainers as the reference category. This can be problematic because often times the abstainer or non-drinking category includes older adults who stopped consuming alcohol because of poor health […] Not differentiating former alcohol consumers from lifelong abstainers has been found to explain some but not all of the benefit of alcohol consumption for preventing mortality from cardiovascular causes [96].”

“It is common for people to engage in other behaviors while consuming alcohol. This complicates the relationship between alcohol consumption and cognition because many of the behaviors associated with alcohol consumption are positively and negatively associated with cognitive functioning. For example, alcohol consumers are more likely to smoke than non-drinkers [104] and smoking has been associated with an increased risk for dementia and cognitive decline [105]. […] The relationship between alcohol consumption and cognition may also differ between people with or without a history of mental illness. Depression reduces the volume of the hippocampus [106] and there is growing evidence that depression plays an important role in dementia. Depression during middle age is recognized as a risk factor for dementia [107], and high depressive symptoms during old age may be an early symptom of dementia [108]. Middle aged adults with depression or other mental illness who self-medicate with alcohol may be at especially high risk for dementia later in life because of synergistic effects that alcohol and depression has on the brain. […] While current evidence from epidemiological studies indicates that consuming light to moderate amounts of alcohol, in particular wine, does not negatively affect cognition and in many cases is associated with cognitive health, adults who do not consume alcohol should not be encouraged to increase their alcohol consumption until further research clarifies these relationships. Inconsistencies between studies on how alcohol consumption categories are defined make it difficult to determine the “optimal” amount of alcohol consumption to prevent dementia. It is likely that the optimal amount of alcohol varies according to a person’s gender, as well as genetic, physiological, behavioral, and health characteristics, making the issue extremely complex.”

Falls are the leading cause of both fatal and nonfatal injuries among older adults, with one in three older adults falling each year, and 20–30% of people who fall suffer moderate to severe injuries such as lacerations, hip fractures, and head traumas. In fact, falls are the foremost cause of both fractures and traumatic brain injury (TBI) among older adults […] In 2013, 2.5 million nonfatal falls among older adults were treated in ED and more than 734,000 of these patients were hospitalized. […] Our analysis of the 2012 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) data set show that fall-related injury was a presenting problem among 12% of all ED visits by those aged 65+, with significant differences among age groups: 9% among the 65–74 age group, 12 % among the 75–84 age group, and 18 % among the 85+ age group [4]. […] heavy alcohol use predicts fractures. For example, among those 55+ years old in a health survey in England, men who consumed more than 8 units of alcohol and women who consumed more than 6 units on their heaviest drinking day in the past week had significantly increased odds of fractures (OR =1.65, 95% CI =1.37–1.98 for men and OR=2.07, 95% CI =1.28–3.35 for women) [63]. […] The 2008–2009 Canadian Community Health Survey-Healthy Aging also showed that consumption of at least one alcoholic drink per week increased the odds of falling by 40 % among those 65+ years [57].”

I at first was not much impressed by the effect sizes mentioned above because there are surely 100 relevant variables they didn’t account for/couldn’t account for, but then I thought a bit more about it. An important observation here – they don’t mention it in the coverage, but it sprang to mind – is that if sick or frail elderly people consume less alcohol than their more healthy counterparts, and are more likely to not consume alcohol (which they do, and which they are, we know this), and if frail or sick(er) elderly people are more likely to suffer a fall/fracture than are people who are relatively healthy (they are, again, we know this), well, then you’d expect consumption of alcohol to be found to have a ‘protective effect’ simply due to confounding by (reverse) indication (unless the researchers were really careful about adjusting for such things, but no such adjustments are mentioned in the coverage, which makes sense as these are just raw numbers being reported). The point is that the null here should not be that ‘these groups should be expected to have the same fall rate/fracture rate’, but rather ‘people who drink alcohol should be expected to be doing better, all else equal’ – but they aren’t, quite the reverse. So ‘the true effect size’ here may be larger than what you’d think.

I’m reasonably sure things are a lot more complicated than the above makes it appear (because of those 100 relevant variables we were talking about…), but I find it interesting anyway. Two more things to note: 1. Have another look at the numbers above if they didn’t sink in the first time. This is more than 10% of emergency department visits for that age group. Falls are a really big deal. 2. Fractures in the elderly are also a potentially really big deal. Here’s a sample quote: “One-fifth of hip fracture victims will die within 6 months of the injury, and only 50% will return to their previous level of independence.” (link). In some contexts, a fall is worse news than a cancer diagnosis, and they are very common events in the elderly. This also means that even relatively small effect sizes here can translate into quite large public health effects, because baseline incidence is so high.

The older adult population is a disproportionate consumer of prescription and over-the-counter medications. In a nationally representative sample of community-dwelling adults aged 57–84 years from the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP) in 2005–2006, 81 % regularly used at least one prescription medication on a regular basis and 29% used at least five prescription medications. Forty-two percent used at least one nonprescription medication and concurrent use with a prescription medication was common, with 46% of prescription medication users also using OTC medications [2]. Prescription drug use by older adults in the U.S. is also growing. The percentage of older adults taking at least one prescription drug in the last 30 days increased from 73.6% in 1988–1994 to 89.7 % in 2007–2010 and the percentage taking five or more prescription drugs in the last 30 days increased from 13.8% in 1988–1994 to 39.7 % in 2007–2010 [3].”

The aging process can affect the response to a medication by altering its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics [9, 10]. Reduced gastrointestinal motility and gastric acidity can alter the rate or extent of drug absorption. Changes in body composition, including decreased total body water and increased body fat can alter drug distribution. For alcohol, changes in body composition result in higher blood alcohol levels in older adults compared to younger adults after the same dose or quantity  of alcohol consumed. Decreased size of the liver, hepatic blood flow, and function of Phase I (oxidation, reduction, and hydrolysis) metabolic pathways result in reduced drug metabolism and increased drug exposure for drugs that undergo Phase I metabolism. Phase II hepatic metabolic pathways are generally preserved with aging. Decreased size of the kidney, renal blood flow, and glomerular filtration result in slower elimination of medications and metabolites by the kidney and increased drug exposure for medications that undergo renal elimination. Age-related impairment of homeostatic mechanisms and changes in receptor number and function can result in changes in pharmacodynamics as well. Older adults are generally more sensitive to the effects of medications and alcohol which act on the central nervous system for example. The consequences of these physiologic changes with aging are that older adults often experience increased drug exposure for the same dose (higher drug concentrations over time) and increased sensitivity to medications (greater response at a given drug concentration) than their younger counterparts.”

“Aging-related changes in physiology are not the only sources of variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics that must be considered for an individual person. Older adults experience more chronic diseases that may decrease drug metabolism and renal elimination than younger cohorts. Frailty may result in further decline in drug metabolism, including Phase II metabolic pathways in the liver […] Drug interactions must also be considered […] A drug interaction is defined as a clinically meaningful change in the effect of one drug when coadministered with another drug [12]. Many drugs, including alcohol, have the potential for a drug interaction when administered concurrently, but whether a clinically meaningful change in effect occurs for a specific person depends on patient-specifc factors including age. Drug interactions are generally classified as pharmacokinetic interactions, where one drug alters the absorption, distribution, metabolism, or elimination of another drug resulting in increased or decreased drug exposure, or pharmacodynamic interactions, where one drug alters the response to another medication through additive or antagonistic pharmacologic effects [13]. An adverse drug event occurs when a pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interaction or combination of both results in changes in drug exposure or response that lead to negative clinical outcomes. The adverse drug event could be a therapeutic failure if drug exposure is decreased or the pharmacologic response is antagonistic. The adverse drug event could be drug toxicity if the drug exposure is increased or the pharmacologic response is additive or synergistic. The threshold for experiencing an adverse event is often lower in older adults due to physiologic changes with aging and medical comorbidities, increasing their risk of experiencing an adverse drug event when medications are taken concurrently.”

“A large number of potential medication–alcohol interactions have been reported in the literature. Mechanisms of these interactions range from pharmacokinetic interactions affecting either alcohol or medication exposure to pharmacodynamics interactions resulting in exaggerated response. […] Epidemiologic evidence suggests that concurrent use of alcohol and medications among older adults is common. […] In a nationally representative U.S. sample of community-dwelling older adults in the National Social Life, Health and Aging Project (NSHAP) 2005–2006, 41% of participants reported consuming alcohol at least once per week and 20% were at risk for an alcohol–medication interaction because they were using both alcohol and alcohol-interacting medications on a regular basis [17]. […] Among participants in the Pennsylvania Assistance Contract for the Elderly program (aged 65–106 years) taking at least one prescription medication, 77% were taking an alcohol-interacting medication and 19% of the alcohol-interacting medication users reported concurrent use of alcohol [18]. […] Although these studies do not document adverse outcomes associated with alcohol–medication interactions, they do document that the potential exists for many older adults. […] High prevalence of concurrent use of alcohol and alcohol-interacting medications have also been reported in Australian men (43% of sedative or anxiolytic users were daily drinkers) [19], in older adults in Finland (42% of at-risk alcohol users were also taking alcohol-interacting medications) [20], and in older Irish adults (72% of participants were exposed to alcohol-interacting medications and 60% of these reported concurrent alcohol use) [21]. Drinking and medication use patterns in older adults may differ across countries, but alcohol–medication interactions appear to be a worldwide concern. […] Polypharmacy in general, and psychotropic burden specifically, has been associated with an increased risk of experiencing a geriatric syndrome such as falls or delirium, in older adults [26, 27]. Based on its pharmacology, alcohol can be considered as a psychotropic drug, and alcohol use should be assessed as part of the medication regimen evaluation to support efforts to prevent or manage geriatric syndromes. […] Combining alcohol and CNS active medications can be particularly problematic […] Older adults suffering from sleep problems or pain may be a particular risk for alcohol–medication interaction-related adverse events.”

In general, alcohol use in younger couples has been found to be highly concordant, that is, individuals in a relationship tend to engage in similar drinking behaviors [67,68]. Less is known, however, about alcohol use concordance between older couples. Graham and Braun [69] examined similarities in drinking behavior between spouses in a study of 826 community-dwelling older adults in Ontario, Canada. Results showed high concordance of drinking between spouses — whether they drank at all, how much they drank, and how frequently. […] Social learning theory suggests that alcohol use trajectories are strongly influenced by attitudes and behaviors of an individual’s social networks, particularly family and friends. When individuals engage in social activities with family and friends who approve of and engage in drinking, alcohol use, and misuse are reinforced [58, 59]. Evidence shows that among older adults, participation in social activities is correlated with higher levels of alcohol consumption [34, 60]. […] Brennan and Moos [29] […] found that older adults who reported less empathy and support from friends drank more alcohol, were more depressed, and were less self-confident. More stressors involving friends were associated with more drinking problems. Similar to the findings on marital conflict […], conflict in close friendships can prompt alcohol-use problems; conversely, these relationships can suffer as a result of alcohol-related problems. […] As opposed to social network theory […], social selection theory proposes that alcohol consumption changes an individual’s social context [33]. Studies among younger adults have shown that heavier drinkers chose partners and friends who approve of heavier drinking [70] and that excessive drinking can alienate social networks. The Moos study supports the idea that social selection also has a strong influence on drinking behavior among older adults.”

Traditionally, treatment studies in addiction have excluded patients over the age of 65. This bias has left a tremendous gap in knowledge regarding treatment outcomes and an understanding of the neurobiology of addiction in older adults.

Alcohol use causes well-established changes in sleep patterns, such as decreased sleep latency, decreased stage IV sleep, and precipitation or aggravation of sleep apnea [101]. There are also age-associated changes in sleep patterns including increased REM episodes, a decrease in REM length, a decrease in stage III and IV sleep, and increased awakenings. Age-associated changes in sleep can all be worsened by alcohol use and depression. Moeller and colleagues [102] demonstrated in younger subjects that alcohol and depression had additive effects upon sleep disturbances when they occurred together [102]. Wagman and colleagues [101] also have demonstrated that abstinent alcoholics did not sleep well because of insomnia, frequent awakenings, and REM fragmentation [101]; however, when these subjects ingested alcohol, sleep periodicity normalized and REM sleep was temporarily suppressed, suggesting that alcohol use could be used to self-medicate for sleep disturbances. A common anecdote from patients is that alcohol is used to help with sleep problems. […] The use of alcohol to self-medicate is considered maladaptive [34] and is associated with a host of negative outcomes. […] The use of alcohol to aid with sleep has been found to disrupt sleep architecture and cause sleep-related problems and daytime sleepiness [35, 36, 46]. Though alcohol is commonly used to aid with sleep initiation, it can worsen sleep-related breathing disorders and cause snoring and obstructive sleep apnea [36].”

Epidemiologic studies have clearly demonstrated that comorbidity between alcohol use and other psychiatric symptoms is common in younger age groups. Less is known about comorbidity between alcohol use and psychiatric illness in late life [88]. […] Blow et al. [90] reviewed the diagnosis of 3,986 VA patients between ages 60 and 69 presenting for alcohol treatment [90]. The most common comorbid psychiatric disorder was an affective disorder found in 21 % of the patients. […] Blazer et al. [91] studied 997 community dwelling elderly of whom only 4.5% had a history of alcohol use problems [91]; […] of these subjects, almost half had a comorbid diagnosis of depression or dysthymia. Comorbid depressive symptoms are not only common in late life but are also an important factor in the course and prognosis of psychiatric disorders. Depressed alcoholics have been shown to have a more complicated clinical course of depression with an increased risk of suicide and more social dysfunction than non-depressed alcoholics [9296]. […]  Alcohol use prior to late life has also been shown to influence treatment of late life depression. Cook and colleagues [94] found that a prior history of alcohol use problems predicted a more severe and chronic course for depression [94]. […] The effect of past heavy alcohol use is [also] highlighted in the findings from the Liverpool Longitudinal Study demonstrating a fivefold increase in psychiatric illness among elderly men who had a lifetime history of 5 or more years of heavy drinking [24]. The association between heavy alcohol consumption in earlier years and psychiatric morbidity in later life was not explained by current drinking habits. […] While Wernicke-Korsakoff’s syndrome is well described and often caused by alcohol use disorders, alcohol-related dementia may be difficult to differentiate from Alzheimer’s disease. Clinical diagnostic criteria for alcohol-related dementia (ARD) have been proposed and now validated in at least one trial, suggesting a method for distinguishing ARD, including Wernicke-Korsakoff’s syndrome, from other types of dementia [97, 98]. […] Finlayson et al. [100] found that 49 of 216 (23%) elderly patients presenting for alcohol treatment had dementia associated with alcohol use disorders [100].”

 

Advertisements

May 24, 2018 Posted by | Books, Demographics, Epidemiology, Medicine, Neurology, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Statistics | Leave a comment

100 cases in emergency medicine and critical care (I)

“This book has been written for medical students, doctors and nurse practitioners. One of the best methods of learning is case-based learning. This book presents a hundred such ‘cases’ or ‘patients’ which have been arranged by system. Each case has been written to stand alone […] the focus of each case is to recognise the initial presentation, the underlying pathophysiology, and to understand broad treatment principles.”

I really liked the book; as was also the case for the surgery book I recently read the cases included in these publications are slightly longer than they were in some of the previous publications in the series I’ve read, and I think this makes a big difference in terms of how much you actually get out of each case.

Below I have added some links and quotes related to the first half of the book’s coverage.

Tracheostomy.
Malnutrition (“it is estimated that around a quarter of hospital inpatients are inadequately nourished. This may be due to increased nutritional requirements […], nutritional losses (e.g. malabsorption, vomiting, diarrhoea) or reduced intake […] A patient’s basal energy expenditure is doubled in head injuries and burns.”)
Acute Adult Supraglottitis. (“It is important to appreciate that halving the radius of the airway will increase its resistance by 16 times (Poiseuille’s equation), and hearing stridor means there is around 75% airway obstruction.”)
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. (“After successful resuscitation from an OHCA, only 10% of patients will survive to discharge, and many of these individuals will have significant neurologic disability.”)
Bacterial meningitis. (“Meningococcal meningitis has a high mortality, with 10%-15% of patients dying of the disease despite appropriate therapy.”)
Diabetic ketoacidosis.
Anaphylaxis (“Always think of anaphylaxis when seeing patients with skin/mucosal symptoms, respiratory difficulty and/or hypotension, especially after exposure to a potential allergen.”)
Early goal-directed therapy. (“While randomised evidence on the benefit of [this approach] is conflicting, it is standard practice in most centres.” I’m not sure I’d agree with the authors that the evidence is ‘conflicting’, it looks to me like it’s reasonably clear at this point: “In this meta-analysis of individual patient data, EGDT did not result in better outcomes than usual care and was associated with higher hospitalization costs across a broad range of patient and hospital characteristics.”)
Cardiac tamponade. Hypovolaemic shock. Permissive hypotensionFocused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST). (“Shock refers to inadequate tissue perfusion and tissue oxygenation. The commonest cause in an injured patient is hypovolaemic shock due to blood loss, but other causes include cardiogenic shock due to myocardial dysfunction, neurogenic shock due to sympathetic dysfunction or obstructive shock due to obstruction of the great vessels or heart. […] tachycardia, cool skin and reduced pulse pressure are early signs of shock until proven otherwise.”)
Intravenous therapy. A Comparison of Albumin and Saline for Fluid Resuscitation in the Intensive Care Unit.
Thermal burns. Curling’s ulcer. Escharotomy. Wallace rule of nines. Fluid management in major burn injuries. (“Alkali burns are more harmful than acidic. […] Electrical burns cause more destruction than the external burn may suggest. They are associated with internal destruction, as the path of least resistance is nerves and blood vessels. They can also cause arrhythmias and an electrocardiogram should be performed.”)
Steven Johnson syndrome. Nikolsky’s sign. SCORTEN scale.
Cardiac arrest. (“The mantra in the ED is that ‘you are not dead until you are warm and dead'”).
Myocardial infarction. (“The most important goal of the acute management of STEMI is coronary reperfusion, which may be achieved either by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or use of fibrinolytic agents (thrombolysis). PCI is the preferred strategy if it can be delivered within 120 minutes of first medical contact (and ideally within 90 minutes) […] several randomised trials have shown that PCI provides improved short- and long-term survival outcomes compared to fibrinolysis, providing it can be performed within the appropriate time frame.”)
Asthma exacerbation. (“the prognosis for asthmatics admitted to the Intensive Care Unit is guarded, with an in-hospital mortality of 7% in those who are mechanically ventilated.”)
Acute exacerbation of COPD. Respiratory Failure.
Pulmonary embolism. CT pulmonary angiography. (“Obstructive cardiopulmonary disease is the main diagnosis to exclude in patients presenting with shortness of breath and syncope.”)
Sepsis. Sepsis Six. qSOFA. (“The main clinical features of sepsis include hypotension […], tachycardia […], a high (>38.3°C) or low (<36°C) temperature, altered mental status and signs of peripheral shutdown (cool skin, prolonged capillary refill, cyanosis) in severe cases. […] Sepsis is associated with substantial in-hospital morbidity and mortality, and an increased risk of death and re-admission to hospital even if the patient survives until discharge. Prognostic factors in sepsis include patient factors (increasing age, higher comorbidity), site of infection (urosepsis is associated with better outcomes compared to other sources), type of pathogen (nosocomial infections have higher mortality), early administration of antibiotics (which may reduce mortality by 50%) and restoration of perfusion.”)
Acute kidney injury. (“Classically there are three major causative categories of AKI: (i) pre-renal (i.e. hypoperfusion), (ii) renal (i.e. an intrinsic process with the kidneys) and (iii) post-renal (i.e. urinary tract obstruction). The initial evaluation should attempt to determine which of these are leading to AKI in the patient. […] two main complications that arise with AKI [are] volume and electrolyte issues.”)
Acute chest syndrome.
Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Schistocyte. Plasmapheresis.
Lower gastrointestinal bleeding. WarfarinProthrombin complex concentrate. (“Warfarin is associated with a 1%-3% risk of bleeding each year in patients with atrial fibrillation, and the main risk factors for this include presence of comorbities, interacting medications, poor patient compliance, acute illness and dietary variation in vitamin K intake.”)
Acute back pain. Malignant spinal cord compression (-MSCC). (“Acute back pain is not an uncommon reason for presentation to the Emergency Department […] Although the majority of such presentations represent benign pathology, it is important to exclude more serious pathology such as cord or cauda equina compression, infection or abscess. Features in the history warranting greater concern include a prior history of cancer, recent infection or steroid use, fever, pain in the thoracic region, pain that improves with rest and the presence of urinary symptoms. Similarly, ‘red flag’ examination findings include gait ataxia, generalized weakness, upper motor neurone signs (clonus, hyper-reflexia, extensor plantars), a palpable bladder, saddle anaesthesia and reduced anal tone. […] MSCC affects up to 5% of all cancer patients and is the first manifestation of cancer in a fifth of patients.”)
Neutropenic sepsis. (“Neutropaenic sepsis […] arises as a result of cytotoxic chemotherapy suppressing the bone marrow, leading to depletion of white blood cells and leaving the individual vulnerable to infection. It is one of the most common complications of cancer therapy, carrying a significant mortality rate of ~5%-10%, and should be regarded as a medical emergency. Any patient receiving chemotherapy and presenting with a fever should be assumed to have neutropaenic sepsis until proven otherwise.”)
Bacterial Pneumonia. CURB-65 Pneumonia Severity Score.
Peptic ulcer diseaseUpper gastrointestinal bleeding. Glasgow-Blatchford score. Rockall score.
Generalised tonic-clonic seizure. Status Epilepticus.
“Chest pain is an extremely common presentation in the ED […] Key features that may help point towards particular diagnoses include • Location and radiation – Central chest pain that radiates to the face, neck or arms is classic for MI, whereas the pain may be more posterior (between should blades) in aortic dissection and unilateral in lung disease. • Onset – Sudden or acute onset pain usually indicates a vascular cause (e.g. PE or aortic dissection), whereas cardiac chest pain is typically more subacute in onset and increases over time. • Character – Cardiac pain is usually described as crushing but may often be a gnawing discomfort, whereas pain associated with aortic dissection and gastrointestinal disorders is usually tearing/ripping and burning, respectively. • Exacerbation/alleviation […] myocardial ischaemia will manifest as pain brought on by exercise and relieved by rest, which is a good discriminator between cardiac and non-cardiac pain.”
Syncope. Mobitz type II AV block. (The differential diagnosis for syncope is seizure, and the two may be distinguished by the absence of a quick or spontaneous recovery with a seizure, where a post-ictal state (sleepiness, confusion, lethargy) is present.”)
Atrial Fibrillation. CHADSVASC and HASBLED risk scores. (“AF with rapid ventricular rates is generally managed with control of heart rates through use of beta-blockers or calcium-channel blockers. • Unstable patients with AF may require electrical cardioversion to restore sinus rhythm.”)
Typhoid fever. Dysentery.
Alcohol toxicity. (“Differentials which may mimic acute alcohol intoxication include • Hypoglycemia • Electrolyte disturbance • Vitamin depletion (B12/folate) • Head trauma • Sepsis • Other toxins or drug overdose • Other causes for CNS depression”)
Tricyclic Antidepressant Toxicity. (“Over 50% of suicidal overdoses involve more than one medication and are often taken with alcohol.”)
Suicide. SADPERSONS scale. (“Intentional self-harm results in around 150,000 attendances to the ED [presumably ‘every year’ – US]. These patients are 100 times more likely to commit suicide within the next year compared to the general population. Self-harm and suicide are often used interchangeably, but are in fact two separate entities. Suicide is a self-inflicted intentional act to cause death, whereas self-harm is a complex behaviour to inflict harm but not associated with the thought of dying – a method to relieve mental stress by inflicting physical pain.”)
Cauda equina syndrome (-CES). (“signs and symptoms of lower extremity weakness and pain developing acutely after heavy lifting should raise suspicion for a herniated intervertebral disc, which is the commonest cause of CES. […] CES is a neurosurgical emergency. The goal is to prevent irreversible loss of bowel and bladder function and motor function of the lower extremities. […] A multitude of alternative diagnoses may masquerade as CES – stroke, vascular claudication, deep venous thrombosis, muscle cramps and peripheral neuropathy.”)
Concussion.
Subarachnoid hemorrhage. Arteriovenous malformation.
Ischemic Stroke. AlteplaseMechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. (“evaluation and treatment should be based on the understanding that the damage that is done (infarcted brain) is likely to be permanent, and the goal is to prevent further damage (ischaemic brain) and treat reversible causes (secondary prevention). Along those lines, time is critical to the outcome of the patient.”)
Mechanical back pain. Sciatica.
Dislocated shoulder. Bankart lesion. Hill-Sachs lesion. Kocher’s method.
Supracondylar Humerus Fractures. (“Supracondular fractures in the adult are relatively uncommon but are seen in major trauma or in elderly patients where bone quality may be compromised. Elbow fractures need careful neurovascular evaluation […] There are three major nerves that pass through the region: 1. The median nerve […] 2. The radial nerve […] 3. The ulnar nerve […] It is important to assess these three nerves and to document their function individually. The brachial artery passes through the cubital fossa and may be directly injured by bone fragments or suffer intimal damage. […] This is a true orthopaedic and vascular emergency as the upper limb can only tolerate an ischaemia time of around 90 minutes before irreparable damage is sustained.”)
Boxer’s fracture.

May 2, 2018 Posted by | Books, Cancer/oncology, Cardiology, Infectious disease, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Psychiatry, Studies | Leave a comment

Prevention of Late-Life Depression (II)

Some more observations from the book:

In contrast to depression in childhood and youth when genetic and developmental vulnerabilities play a significant role in the development of depression, the development of late-life depression is largely attributed to its interactions with acquired factors, especially medical illness [17, 18]. An analysis of the WHO World Health Survey indicated that the prevalence of depression among medical patients ranged from 9.3 to 23.0 %, significantly higher than that in individuals without medical conditions [19]. Wells et al. [20] found in the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study that the risk of developing lifetime psychiatric disorders among individuals with at least one medical condition was 27.9 % higher than among those without medical conditions. […] Depression and disability mutually reinforce the risk of each other, and adversely affect disease progression and prognosis [21, 25]. […] disability caused by medical conditions serves as a risk factor for depression [26]. When people lose their normal sensory, motor, cognitive, social, or executive functions, especially in a short period of time, they can become very frustrated or depressed. Inability to perform daily tasks as before decreases self-esteem, reduces independence, increases the level of psychological stress, and creates a sense of hopelessness. On the other hand, depression increases the risk for disability. Negative interpretation, attention bias, and learned hopelessness of depressed persons may increase risky health behaviors that exacerbate physical disorders or disability. Meanwhile, depression-related cognitive impairment also affects role performance and leads to functional disability [25]. For example, Egede [27] found in the 1999 National Health Interview Survey that the risk of having functional disability among patients with the comorbidity of diabetes and depression were approximately 2.5–5 times higher than those with either depression or diabetes alone. […]  A leading cause of disability among medical patients is pain and pain-related fears […] Although a large proportion of pain complaints can be attributed to physiological changes from physical disorders, psychological factors (e.g., attention, interpretation, and coping skills) play an important role in perception of pain […] Bair et al. [31] indicated in a literature review that the prevalence of pain was higher among depressed patients than non-depressed patients, and the prevalence of major depression was also higher among pain patients comparing to those without pain complaints.”

Alcohol use has more serious adverse health effects on older adults than other age groups, since aging-related physiological changes (e.g. reduced liver detoxification and renal clearance) affect alcohol metabolism, increase the blood concentration of alcohol, and magnify negative consequences. More importantly, alcohol interacts with a variety of frequently prescribed medications potentially influencing both treatment and adverse effects. […] Due to age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, older adults are a vulnerable population to […] adverse drug effects. […] Adverse drug events are frequently due to failure to adjust dosage or to account for drug–drug interactions in older adults [64]. […] Loneliness […] is considered as an independent risk factor for depression [46, 47], and has been demonstrated to be associated with low physical activity, increased cardiovascular risks, hyperactivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, and activation of immune response [for details, see Cacioppo & Patrick’s book on these topics – US] […] Hopelessness is a key concept of major depression [54], and also an independent risk factor of suicidal ideation […] Hopelessness reduces expectations for the future, and negatively affects judgment for making medical and behavioral decisions, including non-adherence to medical regimens or engaging in unhealthy behaviors.”

Co-occurring depression and medical conditions are associated with more functional impairment and mortality than expected from the severity of the medical condition alone. For example, depression accompanying diabetes confers increased functional impairment [27], complications of diabetes [65, 66], and mortality [6771]. Frasure-Smith and colleagues highlighted the prognostic importance of depression among persons who had sustained a myocardial infarction (MI), finding that depression was a significant predictor of mortality at both 6 and 18 months post MI [72, 73]. Subsequent follow-up studies have borne out the increased risk conferred by depression on the mortality of patients with cardiovascular disease [10, 74, 75]. Over the course of a 2-year follow-up interval, depression contributed as much to mortality as did myocardial infarction or diabetes, with the population attributable fraction of mortality due to depression approximately 13 % (similar to the attributable risk associated with heart attack at 11 % and diabetes at 9 %) [76]. […] Although the bidirectional relationship between physical disorders and depression has been well known, there are still relatively few randomized controlled trials on preventing depression among medically ill patients. […] Rates of attrition [in post-stroke depression prevention trials has been observed to be] high […] Stroke, acute coronary syndrome, cancer, and other conditions impose a variety of treatment burdens on patients so that additional interventions without direct or immediate clinical effects may not be acceptable [95]. So even with good participation rates, lack of adherence to the intervention might limit effects.”

Late-life depression (LLD) is a heterogeneous disease, with multiple risk factors, etiologies, and clinical features. It has been recognized for many years that there is a significant relationship between the presence of depression and cerebrovascular disease in older adults [1, 2]. This subtype of LLD was eventually termed “vascular depression.” […] There have been a multitude of studies associating white matter abnormalities with depression in older adults using MRI technology to visualize lesions, or what appear as hyperintensities in the white matter on T2-weighted scans. A systematic review concluded that white matter hyperintensities (WMH) are more common and severe among older adults with depression compared to their non-depressed peers [9]. […] WMHs are associated with older age [13] and cerebrovascular risk factors, including diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension [14–17]. White matter severity and extent of WMH volume has been related to the severity of depression in late life [18, 19]. For example, among 639 older, community-dwelling adults, white matter lesion (WML) severity was found to predict depressive episodes and symptoms over a 3-year period [19]. […] Another way of investigating white matter integrity is with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which measures the diffusion of water in tissues and allows for indirect evidence of the microstructure of white matter, most commonly represented as fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD). DTI may be more sensitive to white matter pathology than is quantification of WMH […] A number of studies have found lower FA in widespread regions among individuals with LLD relative to controls [34, 36, 37]. […] lower FA has been associated with poorer performance on measures of cognitive functioning among patients with LLD [35, 38–40] and with measures of cerebrovascular risk severity. […] It is important to recognize that FA reflects the organization of fiber tracts, including fiber density, axonal diameter, or myelination in white matter. Thus, lower FA can result from multiple pathophysiological sources [42, 43]. […] Together, the aforementioned studies provide support for the vascular depression hypothesis. They demonstrate that white matter integrity is reduced in patients with LLD relative to controls, is somewhat specific to regions important for cognitive and emotional functioning, and is associated with cognitive functioning and depression severity. […] There is now a wealth of evidence to support the association between vascular pathology and depression in older age. While the etiology of depression in older age is multifactorial, from the epidemiological, neuroimaging, behavioral, and genetic evidence available, we can conclude that vascular depression represents one important subtype of LLD. The mechanisms underlying the relationship between vascular pathology and depression are likely multifactorial, and may include disrupted connections between key neural regions, reduced perfusion of blood to key brain regions integral to affective and cognitive processing, and inflammatory processes.”

Cognitive changes associated with depression have been the focus of research for decades. Results have been inconsistent, likely as a result of methodological differences in how depression is diagnosed and cognitive functioning measured, as well as the effects of potential subtypes and the severity of depression […], though deficits in executive functioning, learning and memory, and attention have been associated with depression in most studies [75]. In older adults, additional confounding factors include the potential presence of primary degenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease, which can pose a challenge to differential diagnosis in its early stages. […] LLD with cognitive dysfunction has been shown to result in greater disability than depressive symptoms alone [6], and MCI [mild cognitive impairment, US] with co-occurring LLD has been shown to double the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) compared to MCI alone [86]. The conversion from MCI to AD also appears to occur earlier in patients with cooccurring depressive symptoms, as demonstrated by Modrego & Ferrandez [86] in their prospective cohort study of 114 outpatients diagnosed with amnestic MCI. […] Given accruing evidence for abnormal functioning of a number of cortical and subcortical networks in geriatric depression, of particular interest is whether these abnormalities are a reflection of the actively depressed state, or whether they may persist following successful resolution of symptoms. To date, studies have investigated this question through either longitudinal investigation of adults with geriatric depression, or comparison of depressed elders who are actively depressed versus those who have achieved symptom remission. Of encouragement, successful treatment has been reliably associated with normalization of some aspects of disrupted network functioning. For example, successful antidepressant treatment is associated with reduction of the elevated cerebral glucose metabolism observed during depressed states (e.g., [71–74]), with greater symptom reduction associated with greater metabolic change […] Taken together, these studies suggest that although a subset of the functional abnormalities observed during the LLD state may resolve with successful treatment, other abnormalities persist and may be tied to damage to the structural connectivity in important affective and cognitive networks. […] studies suggest a chronic decrement in cognitive functioning associated with LLD that is not adequately addressed through improvement of depressive symptoms alone.”

A review of the literature on evidence-based treatments for LLD found that about 50 % of patients improved on antidepressants, but that the number needed to treat (NNT) was quite high (NNT = 8, [139]) and placebo effects were significant [140]. Additionally, no difference was demonstrated in the effectiveness of one antidepressant drug class over another […], and in one-third of patients, depression was resistant to monotherapy [140]. The addition of medications or switching within or between drug classes appears to result in improved treatment response for these patients [140, 141]. A meta-analysis of patient-level variables demonstrated that duration of depressive symptoms and baseline depression severity significantly predicts response to antidepressant treatment in LLD, with chronically depressed older patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms at baseline experiencing more improvement in symptoms than mildly and acutely depressed patients [142]. Pharmacological treatment response appears to range from incomplete to poor in LLD with co-occurring cognitive impairment.”

“[C]ompared to other formulations of prevention, such as primary, secondary, or tertiary — in which interventions are targeted at the level of disease/stage of disease — the IOM conceptual framework involves interventions that are targeted at the level of risk in the population [2]. […] [S]elective prevention studies have an important “numbers” advantage — similar to that of indicated prevention trials: the relatively high incidence of depression among persons with key risk markers enables investigator to test interventions with strong statistical power, even with somewhat modest sample sizes. This fact was illustrated by Schoevers and colleagues [3], in which the authors were able to account for nearly 50 % of total risk of late-life depression with consideration of only a handful of factors. Indeed, research, largely generated by groups in the Netherlands and the USA, has identified that selective prevention may be one of the most efficient approaches to late-life depression prevention, as they have estimated that targeting persons at high risk for depression — based on risk markers such as medical comorbidity, low social support, or physical/functional disability — can yield theoretical numbers needed to treat (NNTs) of approximately 5–7 in primary care settings [4–7]. […] compared to the findings from selective prevention trials targeting older persons with general health/medical problems, […] trials targeting older persons based on sociodemographic risk factors have been more mixed and did not reveal as consistent a pattern of benefits for selective prevention of depression.”

Few of the studies in the existing literature that involve interventions to prevent depression and/or reduce depressive symptoms in older populations have included economic evaluations [13]. The identification of cost-effective interventions to provide to groups at high risk for depression is an important public health goal, as such treatments may avert or reduce a significant amount of the disease burden. […] A study by Katon and colleagues [8] showed that elderly patients with either subsyndromal or major depression had significantly higher medical costs during the previous 6 months than those without depression; total healthcare costs were $1,045 to $1,700 greater, and total outpatient/ambulatory costs ranged from being $763 to $979 more, on average. Depressed patients had greater usage of health resources in every category of care examined, including those that are not mental health-related, such as emergency department visits. No difference in excess costs was found between patients with a DSM-IV depressive disorder and those with depressive symptoms only, however, as mean total costs were 51 % higher in the subthreshold depression group (95 % CI = 1.39–1.66) and 49 % higher in the MDD/dysthymia group (95 % CI = 1.28–1.72) than in the nondepressed group [8]. In a similar study, the usage of various types of health services by primary care patients in the Netherlands was assessed, and average costs were determined to be 1,403 more in depressed individuals versus control patients [21]. Study investigators once again observed that patients with depression had greater utilization of both non-mental and mental healthcare services than controls.”

“In order for routine depression screening in the elderly to be cost-effective […] appropriate follow-up measures must be taken with those who screen positive, including a diagnostic interview and/or referral to a mental health professional [this – the necessity/requirement of proper follow-up following screens in order for screening to be cost-effective – is incidentally a standard result in screening contexts, see also Juth & Munthe’s book – US] [23, 25]. For example, subsequent steps may include initiation of psychotherapy or antidepressant treatment. Thus, one reason that the USPSTF does not recommend screening for depression in settings where proper mental health resources do not exist is that the evidence suggests that outcomes are unlikely to improve without effective follow-up care […]  as per the USPSTF suggestion, Medicare will only cover the screening when the appropriate supports for proper diagnosis and treatment are available […] In order to determine which interventions to prevent and treat depression should be provided to those who screen positive for depressive symptoms and to high-risk populations in general, cost-effectiveness analyses must be completed for a variety of different treatments and preventive measures. […] questions remain regarding whether annual versus other intervals of screening are most cost-effective. With respect to preventive interventions, the evidence to date suggests that these are cost-effective in settings where those at the highest risk are targeted.”

February 19, 2018 Posted by | Books, Cardiology, Diabetes, Health Economics, Neurology, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology | Leave a comment

Prevention of Late-Life Depression (I)

Late-life depression is a common and highly disabling condition and is also associated with higher health care utilization and overall costs. The presence of depression may complicate the course and treatment of comorbid major medical conditions that are also highly prevalent among older adults — including diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Furthermore, a considerable body of evidence has demonstrated that, for older persons, residual symptoms and functional impairment due to depression are common — even when appropriate depression therapies are being used. Finally, the worldwide phenomenon of a rapidly expanding older adult population means that unprecedented numbers of seniors — and the providers who care for them — will be facing the challenge of late-life depression. For these reasons, effective prevention of late-life depression will be a critical strategy to lower overall burden and cost from this disorder. […] This textbook will illustrate the imperative for preventing late-life depression, introduce a broad range of approaches and key elements involved in achieving effective prevention, and provide detailed examples of applications of late-life depression prevention strategies”.

I gave the book two stars on goodreads. There are 11 chapters in the book, written by 22 different contributors/authors, so of course there’s a lot of variation in the quality of the material included; the two star rating was an overall assessment of the quality of the material, and the last two chapters – but in particular chapter 10 – did a really good job convincing me that the the book did not deserve a 3rd star (if you decide to read the book, I advise you to skip chapter 10). In general I think many of the authors are way too focused on statistical significance and much too hesitant to report actual effect sizes, which are much more interesting. Gender is mentioned repeatedly throughout the coverage as an important variable, to the extent that people who do not read the book carefully might think this is one of the most important variables at play; but when you look at actual effect sizes, you get reported ORs of ~1.4 for this variable, compared to e.g. ORs in the ~8-9 for the bereavement variable (see below). You can quibble about population attributable fraction and so on here, but if the effect size is that small it’s unlikely to be all that useful in terms of directing prevention efforts/resource allocation (especially considering that women make out the majority of the total population in these older age groups anyway, as they have higher life expectancy than their male counterparts).

Anyway, below I’ve added some quotes and observations from the first few chapters of the book.

Meta-analyses of more than 30 randomized trials conducted in the High Income Countries show that the incidence of new depressive and anxiety disorders can be reduced by 25–50 % over 1–2 years, compared to usual care, through the use of learning-based psychotherapies (such as interpersonal psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and problem solving therapy) […] The case for depression prevention is compelling and represents the key rationale for this volume: (1) Major depression is both prevalent and disabling, typically running a relapsing or chronic course. […] (2) Major depression is often comorbid with other chronic conditions like diabetes, amplifying the disability associated with these conditions and worsening family caregiver burden. (3) Depression is associated with worse physical health outcomes, partly mediated through poor treatment adherence, and it is associated with excess mortality after myocardial infarction, stroke, and cancer. It is also the major risk factor for suicide across the life span and particularly in old age. (4) Available treatments are only partially effective in reducing symptom burden, sustaining remission, and averting years lived with disability.”

“[M]any people suffering from depression do not receive any care and approximately a third of those receiving care do not respond to current treatments. The risk of recurrence is high, also in older persons: half of those who have experienced a major depression will experience one or even more recurrences [4]. […] Depression increases the risk at death: among people suffering from depression the risk of dying is 1.65 times higher than among people without a depression [7], with a dose-response relation between severity and duration of depression and the resulting excess mortality [8]. In adults, the average length of a depressive episode is 8 months but among 20 % of people the depression lasts longer than 2 years [9]. […] It has been estimated that in Australia […] 60 % of people with an affective disorder receive treatment, and using guidelines and standards only 34 % receives effective treatment [14]. This translates in preventing 15 % of Years Lived with Disability [15], a measure of disease burden [14] and stresses the need for prevention [16]. Primary health care providers frequently do not recognize depression, in particular among elderly. Older people may present their depressive symptoms differently from younger adults, with more emphasis on physical complaints [17, 18]. Adequate diagnosis of late-life depression can also be hampered by comorbid conditions such as Parkinson and dementia that may have similar symptoms, or by the fact that elderly people as well as care workers may assume that “feeling down” is part of becoming older [17, 18]. […] Many people suffering from depression do not seek professional help or are not identied as depressed [21]. Almost 14 % of elderly people living in community-type living suffer from a severe depression requiring clinical attention [22] and more than 50 % of those have a chronic course [4, 23]. Smit et al. reported an incidence of 6.1 % of chronic or recurrent depression among a sample of 2,200 elderly people (ages 55–85) [21].”

“Prevention differs from intervention and treatment as it is aimed at general population groups who vary in risk level for mental health problems such as late-life depression. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has introduced a prevention framework, which provides a useful model for comprehending the different objectives of the interventions [29]. The overall goal of prevention programs is reducing risk factors and enhancing protective factors.
The IOM framework distinguishes three types of prevention interventions: (1) universal preventive interventions, (2) selective preventive interventions, and (3) indicated preventive interventions. Universal preventive interventions are targeted at the general audience, regardless of their risk status or the presence of symptoms. Selective preventive interventions serve those sub-populations who have a significantly higher than average risk of a disorder, either imminently or over a lifetime. Indicated preventive interventions target identified individuals with minimal but detectable signs or symptoms suggesting a disorder. This type of prevention consists of early recognition and early intervention of the diseases to prevent deterioration [30]. For each of the three types of interventions, the goal is to reduce the number of new cases. The goal of treatment, on the other hand, is to reduce prevalence or the total number of cases. By reducing incidence you also reduce prevalence [5]. […] prevention research differs from treatment research in various ways. One of the most important differences is the fact that participants in treatment studies already meet the criteria for the illness being studied, such as depression. The intervention is targeted at improvement or remission of the specific condition quicker than if no intervention had taken place. In prevention research, the participants do not meet the specific criteria for the illness being studied and the overall goal of the intervention is to prevent the development of a clinical illness at a lower rate than a comparison group [5].”

A couple of risk factors [for depression] occur more frequently among the elderly than among young adults. The loss of a loved one or the loss of a social role (e.g., employment), decrease of social support and network, and the increasing change of isolation occur more frequently among the elderly. Many elderly also suffer from physical diseases: 64 % of elderly aged 65–74 has a chronic disease [36] […]. It is important to note that depression often co-occurs with other disorders such as physical illness and other mental health problems (comorbidity). Losing a spouse can have significant mental health effects. Almost half of all widows and widowers during the first year after the loss meet the criteria for depression according to the DSM-IV [37]. Depression after loss of a loved one is normal in times of mourning. However, when depressive symptoms persist during a longer period of time it is possible that a depression is developing. Zisook and Shuchter found that a year after the loss of a spouse 16 % of widows and widowers met the criteria of a depression compared to 4 % of those who did not lose their spouse [38]. […] People with a chronic physical disease are also at a higher risk of developing a depression. An estimated 12–36 % of those with a chronic physical illness also suffer from clinical depression [40]. […] around 25 % of cancer patients suffer from depression [40]. […] Depression is relatively common among elderly residing in hospitals and retirement- and nursing homes. An estimated 6–11 % of residents have a depressive illness and among 30 % have depressive symptoms [41]. […] Loneliness is common among the elderly. Among those of 60 years or older, 43 % reported being lonely in a study conducted by Perissinotto et al. […] Loneliness is often associated with physical and mental complaints; apart from depression it also increases the chance of developing dementia and excess mortality [43].”

From the public health perspective it is important to know what the potential health benefits would be if the harmful effect of certain risk factors could be removed. What health benefits would arise from this, at which efforts and costs? To measure this the population attributive fraction (PAF) can be used. The PAF is expressed in a percentage and demonstrates the decrease of the percentage of incidences (number of new cases) when the harmful effects of the targeted risk factors are fully taken away. For public health it would be more effective to design an intervention targeted at a risk factor with a high PAF than a low PAF. […] An intervention needs to be effective in order to be implemented; this means that it has to show a statistically significant difference with placebo or other treatment. Secondly, it needs to be effective; it needs to prove its benefits also in real life (“everyday care”) circumstances. Thirdly, it needs to be efficient. The measure to address this is the Number Needed to Be Treated (NNT). The NNT expresses how many people need to be treated to prevent the onset of one new case with the disorder; the lower the number, the more efficient the intervention [45]. To summarize, an indicated preventative intervention would ideally be targeted at a relatively small group of people with a high, absolute chance of developing the disease, and a risk profile that is responsible for a high PAF. Furthermore, there needs to be an intervention that is both effective and efficient. […] a more detailed and specific description of the target group results in a higher absolute risk, a lower NNT, and also a lower PAF. This is helpful in determining the costs and benefits of interventions aiming at more specific or broader subgroups in the population. […] Unfortunately very large samples are required to demonstrate reductions in universal or selected interventions [46]. […] If the incidence rate is higher in the target population, which is usually the case in selective and even more so in indicated prevention, the number of participants needed to prove an effect is much smaller [5]. This shows that, even though universal interventions may be effective, its effect is harder to prove than that of indicated prevention. […] Indicated and selective preventions appear to be the most successful in preventing depression to date; however, more research needs to be conducted in larger samples to determine which prevention method is really most effective.”

Groffen et al. [6] recently conducted an investigation among a sample of 4,809 participants from the Reykjavik Study (aged 66–93 years). Similar to the findings presented by Vink and colleagues [3], education level was related to depression risk: participants with lower education levels were more likely to report depressed mood in late-life than those with a college education (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 1.35–2.58). […] Results from a meta-analysis by Lorant and colleagues [8] showed that lower SES individuals had a greater odds of developing depression than those in the highest SES group (OR = 1.24, p= 0.004); however, the studies involved in this review did not focus on older populations. […] Cole and Dendukuri [10] performed a meta-analysis of studies involving middle-aged and older adult community residents, and determined that female gender was a risk factor for depression in this population (Pooled OR = 1.4, 95 % CI = 1.2–1.8), but not old age. Blazer and colleagues [11] found a significant positive association between older age and depressive symptoms in a sample consisting of community-dwelling older adults; however, when potential confounders such as physical disability, cognitive impairment, and gender were included in the analysis, the relationship between chronological age and depressive symptoms was reversed (p< 0.01). A study by Schoevers and colleagues [14] had similar results […] these findings suggest that higher incidence of depression observed among the oldest-old may be explained by other relevant factors. By contrast, the association of female gender with increased risk of late-life depression has been observed to be a highly consistent finding.”

In an examination of marital bereavement, Turvey et al. [16] analyzed data among 5,449 participants aged70 years […] recently bereaved participants had nearly nine times the odds of developing syndromal depression as married participants (OR = 8.8, 95 % CI = 5.1–14.9, p<0.0001), and they also had significantly higher risk of depressive symptoms 2 years after the spousal loss. […] Caregiving burden is well-recognized as a predisposing factor for depression among older adults [18]. Many older persons are coping with physically and emotionally challenging caregiving roles (e.g., caring for a spouse/partner with a serious illness or with cognitive or physical decline). Additionally, many caregivers experience elements of grief, as they mourn the loss of relationship with or the decline of valued attributes of their care recipients. […] Concepts of social isolation have also been examined with regard to late-life depression risk. For example, among 892 participants aged 65 years […], Gureje et al. [13] found that women with a poor social network and rural residential status were more likely to develop major depressive disorder […] Harlow and colleagues [21] assessed the association between social network and depressive symptoms in a study involving both married and recently widowed women between the ages of 65 and 75 years; they found that number of friends at baseline had an inverse association with CES-D (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale) score after 1 month (p< 0.05) and 12 months (p= 0.06) of follow-up. In a study that explicitly addressed the concept of loneliness, Jaremka et al. [22] conducted a study relating this factor to late-life depression; importantly, loneliness has been validated as a distinct construct, distinguishable among older adults from depression. Among 229 participants (mean age = 70 years) in a cohort of older adults caring for a spouse with dementia, loneliness (as measured by the NYU scale) significantly predicted incident depression (p<0.001). Finally, social support has been identified as important to late-life depression risk. For example, Cui and colleagues [23] found that low perceived social support significantly predicted worsening depression status over a 2-year period among 392 primary care patients aged 65 years and above.”

“Saunders and colleagues [26] reported […] findings with alcohol drinking behavior as the predictor. Among 701 community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and above, the authors found a significant association between prior heavy alcohol consumption and late-life depression among men: compared to those who were not heavy drinkers, men with a history of heavy drinking had a nearly fourfold higher odds of being diagnosed with depression (OR = 3.7, 95 % CI = 1.3–10.4, p< 0.05). […] Almeida et al. found that obese men were more likely than non-obese (body mass index [BMI] < 30) men to develop depression (HR = 1.31, 95 % CI = 1.05–1.64). Consistent with these results, presence of the metabolic syndrome was also found to increase risk of incident depression (HR = 2.37, 95 % CI = 1.60–3.51). Finally, leisure-time activities are also important to study with regard to late-life depression risk, as these too are readily modifiable behaviors. For example, Magnil et al. [30] examined such activities among a sample of 302 primary care patients aged 60 years. The authors observed that those who lacked leisure activities had an increased risk of developing depressive symptoms over the 2-year study period (OR = 12, 95 % CI = 1.1–136, p= 0.041). […] an important future direction in addressing social and behavioral risk factors in late-life depression is to make more progress in trials that aim to alter those risk factors that are actually modifiable.”

February 17, 2018 Posted by | Books, Epidemiology, Health Economics, Medicine, Psychiatry, Psychology, Statistics | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Type 2 Diabetes in the Real World: The Elusive Nature of Glycemic Control.

“Despite U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of over 40 new treatment options for type 2 diabetes since 2005, the latest data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that the proportion of patients achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) remains around 50%, with a negligible decline between the periods 2003–2006 and 2011–2014. The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set reports even more alarming rates, with only about 40% and 30% of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) in the commercially insured (HMO) and Medicaid populations, respectively, again with virtually no change over the past decade. A recent retrospective cohort study using a large U.S. claims database explored why clinical outcomes are not keeping pace with the availability of new treatment options. The study found that HbA1c reductions fell far short of those reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with poor medication adherence emerging as the key driver behind the disconnect. In this Perspective, we examine the implications of these findings in conjunction with other data to highlight the discrepancy between RCT findings and the real world, all pointing toward the underrealized promise of FDA-approved therapies and the critical importance of medication adherence. While poor medication adherence is not a new issue, it has yet to be effectively addressed in clinical practice — often, we suspect, because it goes unrecognized. To support the busy health care professional, innovative approaches are sorely needed.”

“To better understand the differences between usual care and clinical trial HbA1c results, multivariate regression analysis assessed the relative contributions of key biobehavioral factors, including baseline patient characteristics, drug therapy, and medication adherence (21). Significantly, the key driver was poor medication adherence, accounting for 75% of the gap […]. Adherence was defined […] as the filling of one’s diabetes prescription often enough to cover ≥80% of the time one was recommended to be taking the medication (34). By this metric, proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥80%, only 29% of patients were adherent to GLP-1 RA treatment and 37% to DPP-4 inhibitor treatment. […] These data are consistent with previous real-world studies, which have demonstrated that poor medication adherence to both oral and injectable antidiabetes agents is very common (3537). For example, a retrospective analysis [of] adults initiating oral agents in the DPP-4 inhibitor (n = 61,399), sulfonylurea (n = 134,961), and thiazolidinedione (n = 42,012) classes found that adherence rates, as measured by PDC ≥80% at the 1-year mark after the initial prescription, were below 50% for all three classes, at 47.3%, 41.2%, and 36.7%, respectively (36). Rates dropped even lower at the 2-year follow-up (36)”

“Our current ability to assess adherence and persistence is based primarily on review of pharmacy records, which may underestimate the extent of the problem. For example, using the definition of adherence of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services — PDC ≥80% — a patient could miss up to 20% of days covered and still be considered adherent. In retrospective studies of persistence, the permissible gap after the last expected refill date often extends up to 90 days (39,40). Thus, a patient may have a gap of up to 90 days and still be considered persistent.

Additionally, one must also consider the issue of primary nonadherence; adherence and persistence studies typically only include patients who have completed a first refill. A recent study of e-prescription data among 75,589 insured patients found that nearly one-third of new e-prescriptions for diabetes medications were never filled (41). Finally, none of these measures take into account if the patient is actually ingesting or injecting the medication after acquiring his or her refills.”

“Acknowledging and addressing the problem of poor medication adherence is pivotal because of the well-documented dire consequences: a greater likelihood of long-term complications, more frequent hospitalizations, higher health care costs, and elevated mortality rates (4245). In patients younger than 65, hospitalization risk in one study (n = 137,277) was found to be 30% at the lowest level of adherence to antidiabetes medications (1–19%) versus 13% at the highest adherence quintile (80–100%) […]. In patients over 65, a separate study (n = 123,235) found that all-cause hospitalization risk was 37.4% in adherent cohorts (PDC ≥80%) versus 56.2% in poorly adherent cohorts (PDC <20%) (45). […] Furthermore, for every 1,000 patients who increased adherence to their antidiabetes medications by just 1%, the total medical cost savings was estimated to be $65,464 over 3 years (45). […] “for reasons that are still unclear, the N.A. [North American] patient groups tend to have lower compliance and adherence compared to global rates during large cardiovascular studies” (46,47).”

“There are many potential contributors to poor medication adherence, including depressive affect, negative treatment perceptions, lack of patient-physician trust, complexity of the medication regimen, tolerability, and cost (48). […] A recent review of interventions addressing problematic medication adherence in type 2 diabetes found that few strategies have been shown consistently to have a marked positive impact, particularly with respect to HbA1c lowering, and no single intervention was identified that could be applied successfully to all patients with type 2 diabetes (53). Additional evidence indicates that improvements resulting from the few effective interventions, such as pharmacy-based counseling or nurse-managed home telemonitoring, often wane once the programs end (54,55). We suspect that the efficacy of behavioral interventions to address medication adherence will continue to be limited until there are more focused efforts to address three common and often unappreciated patient obstacles. First, taking diabetes medications is a burdensome and often difficult activity for many of our patients. Rather than just encouraging patients to do a better job of tolerating this burden, more work is needed to make the process easier and more convenient. […] Second, poor medication adherence often represents underlying attitudinal problems that may not be a strictly behavioral issue. Specifically, negative beliefs about prescribed medications are pervasive among patients, and behavioral interventions cannot be effective unless these beliefs are addressed directly (35). […] Third, the issue of access to medications remains a primary concern. A study by Kurlander et al. (51) found that patients selectively forgo medications because of cost; however, noncost factors, such as beliefs, satisfaction with medication-related information, and depression, are also influential.”

ii. Diabetes Research and Care Through the Ages. An overview article which might be of interest especially to people who’re not much familiar with the history of diabetes research and -treatment (a topic which is also very nicely covered in Tattersall’s book). Despite including a historical review of various topics, it also includes many observations about e.g. current (and future?) practice. Some random quotes:

“Arnoldo Cantani established a new strict level of treatment (9). He isolated his patients “under lock and key, and allowed them absolutely no food but lean meat and various fats. In the less severe cases, eggs, liver, and shell-fish were permitted. For drink the patients received water, plain or carbonated, and dilute alcohol for those accustomed to liquors, the total fluid intake being limited to one and one-half to two and one-half liters per day” (6).

Bernhard Naunyn encouraged a strict carbohydrate-free diet (6,10). He locked patients in their rooms for 5 months when necessary for “sugar-freedom” (6).” […let’s just say that treatment options have changed slightly over time – US]

“The characteristics of insulin preparations include the purity of the preparation, the concentration of insulin, the species of origin, and the time course of action (onset, peak, duration) (25). From the 1930s to the early 1950s, one of the major efforts made was to develop an insulin with extended action […]. Most preparations contained 40 (U-40) or 80 (U-80) units of insulin per mL, with U-10 and U-20 eliminated in the early 1940s. U-100 was introduced in 1973 and was meant to be a standard concentration, although U-500 had been available since the early 1950s for special circumstances. Preparations were either of mixed beef and pork origin, pure beef, or pure pork. There were progressive improvements in the purity of preparations as chemical techniques improved. Prior to 1972, conventional preparations contained 8% noninsulin proteins. […] In the early 1980s, “human” insulins were introduced (26). These were made either by recombinant DNA technology in bacteria (Escherichia coli) or yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) or by enzymatic conversion of pork insulin to human insulin, since pork differed by only one amino acid from human insulin. The powerful nature of recombinant DNA technology also led to the development of insulin analogs designed for specific effects. These include rapid-acting insulin analogs and basal insulin analogs.”

“Until 1996, the only oral medications available were biguanides and sulfonylureas. Since that time, there has been an explosion of new classes of oral and parenteral preparations. […] The management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has undergone rapid change with the introduction of several new classes of glucose-lowering therapies. […] the treatment guidelines are generally clear in the context of using metformin as the first oral medication for T2D and present a menu approach with respect to the second and third glucose-lowering medication (3032). In order to facilitate this decision, the guidelines list the characteristics of each medication including side effects and cost, and the health care provider is expected to make a choice that would be most suited for patient comorbidities and health care circumstances. This can be confusing and contributes to the clinical inertia characteristic of the usual management of T2D (33).”

“Perhaps the most frustrating barrier to optimizing diabetes management is the frequent occurrence of clinical inertia (whenever the health care provider does not initiate or intensify therapy appropriately and in a timely fashion when therapeutic goals are not reached). More broadly, the failure to advance therapy in an appropriate manner can be traced to physician behaviors, patient factors, or elements of the health care system. […] Despite clear evidence from multiple studies, health care providers fail to fully appreciate that T2D is a progressive disease. T2D is associated with ongoing β-cell failure and, as a consequence, we can safely predict that for the majority of patients, glycemic control will deteriorate with time despite metformin therapy (35). Continued observation and reinforcement of the current therapeutic regimen is not likely to be effective. As an example of real-life clinical inertia for patients with T2D on monotherapy metformin and an HbA1c of 7 to <8%, it took on the average 19 months before additional glucose-lowering therapy was introduced (36). The fear of hypoglycemia and weight gain are appropriate concerns for both patient and physician, but with newer therapies these undesirable effects are significantly diminished. In addition, health care providers must appreciate that achieving early and sustained glycemic control has been demonstrated to have long-term benefits […]. Clinicians have been schooled in the notion of a stepwise approach to therapy and are reluctant to initiate combination therapy early in the course of T2D, even if the combination intervention is formulated as a fixed-dose combination. […] monotherapy metformin failure rates with a starting HbA1c >7% are ∼20% per year (35). […] To summarize the current status of T2D at this time, it should be clearly emphasized that, first and foremost, T2D is characterized by a progressive deterioration of glycemic control. A stepwise medication introduction approach results in clinical inertia and frequently fails to meet long-term treatment goals. Early/initial combination therapies that are not associated with hypoglycemia and/or weight gain have been shown to be safe and effective. The added value of reducing CV outcomes with some of these newer medications should elevate them to a more prominent place in the treatment paradigm.”

iii. Use of Adjuvant Pharmacotherapy in Type 1 Diabetes: International Comparison of 49,996 Individuals in the Prospective Diabetes Follow-up and T1D Exchange Registries.

“The majority of those with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have suboptimal glycemic control (14); therefore, use of adjunctive pharmacotherapy to improve control has been of clinical interest. While noninsulin medications approved for type 2 diabetes have been reported in T1D research and clinical practice (5), little is known about their frequency of use. The T1D Exchange (T1DX) registry in the U.S. and the Prospective Diabetes Follow-up (DPV) registry in Germany and Austria are two large consortia of diabetes centers; thus, they provide a rich data set to address this question.

For the analysis, 49,996 pediatric and adult patients with diabetes duration ≥1 year and a registry update from 1 April 2015 to 1 July 2016 were included (19,298 individuals from 73 T1DX sites and 30,698 individuals from 354 DPV sites). Adjuvant medication use (metformin, glucagon-like peptide 1 [GLP-1] receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 [DPP-4] inhibitors, sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors, and other noninsulin diabetes medications including pramlintide) was extracted from participant medical records. […] Adjunctive agents, whose proposed benefits may include the ability to improve glycemic control, reduce insulin doses, promote weight loss, and suppress dysregulated postprandial glucagon secretion, have had little penetrance as part of the daily medical regimen of those in the registries studied. […] The use of any adjuvant medication was 5.4% in T1DX and 1.6% in DPV (P < 0.001). Metformin was the most commonly reported medication in both registries, with 3.5% in the T1DX and 1.3% in the DPV (P < 0.001). […] Use of adjuvant medication was associated with older age, higher BMI, and longer diabetes duration in both registries […] it is important to note that registry data did not capture the intent of adjuvant medications, which may have been to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome in women […here’s a relevant link, US].”

iv. Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy in Youth With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study. I recently covered a closely related paper here (paper # 2) but the two papers cover different data sets so I decided it would be worth including this one in this post anyway. Some quotes:

“We previously reported results from a small pilot study comparing the prevalence of DPN in a subset of youth enrolled in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth (SEARCH) study and found that 8.5% of 329 youth with T1D (mean ± SD age 15.7 ± 4.3 years and diabetes duration 6.2 ± 0.9 years) and 25.7% of 70 youth with T2D (age 21.6 ± 4.1 years and diabetes duration 7.6 ± 1.8 years) had evidence of DPN (9). […this is the paper I previously covered here, US] Recently, we also reported the prevalence of microvascular and macrovascular complications in youth with T1D and T2D in the entire SEARCH cohort (10).

In the current study, we examined the cross-sectional and longitudinal risk factors for DPN. The aims were 1) to estimate prevalence of DPN in youth with T1D and T2D, overall and by age and diabetes duration, and 2) to identify risk factors (cross-sectional and longitudinal) associated with the presence of DPN in a multiethnic cohort of youth with diabetes enrolled in the SEARCH study.”

“The SEARCH Cohort Study enrolled 2,777 individuals. For this analysis, we excluded participants aged <10 years (n = 134), those with no antibody measures for etiological definition of diabetes (n = 440), and those with incomplete neuropathy assessment […] (n = 213), which reduced the analysis sample size to 1,992 […] There were 1,734 youth with T1D and 258 youth with T2D who participated in the SEARCH study and had complete data for the variables of interest. […] Seven percent of the participants with T1D and 22% of those with T2D had evidence of DPN.”

“Among youth with T1D, those with DPN were older (21 vs. 18 years, P < 0.0001), had a longer duration of diabetes (8.7 vs. 7.8 years, P < 0.0001), and had higher DBP (71 vs. 69 mmHg, P = 0.02), BMI (26 vs. 24 kg/m2, P < 0.001), and LDL-c levels (101 vs. 96 mg/dL, P = 0.01); higher triglycerides (85 vs. 74 mg/dL, P = 0.005); and lower HDL-c levels (51 vs. 55 mg/dL, P = 0.01) compared to those without DPN. The prevalence of DPN was 5% among nonsmokers vs. 10% among the current and former smokers (P = 0.001). […] Among youth with T2D, those with DPN were older (23 vs. 22 years, P = 0.01), had longer duration of diabetes (8.6 vs. 7.6 years; P = 0.002), and had lower HDL-c (40 vs. 43 mg/dL, P = 0.04) compared with those without DPN. The prevalence of DPN was higher among males than among females: 30% of males had DPN compared with 18% of females (P = 0.02). The prevalence of DPN was twofold higher in current smokers (33%) compared with nonsmokers (15%) and former smokers (17%) (P = 0.01). […] [T]he prevalence of DPN was further assessed by 5-year increment of diabetes duration in individuals with T1D or T2D […]. There was an approximately twofold increase in the prevalence of DPN with an increase in duration of diabetes from 5–10 years to >10 years for both the T1D group (5–13%) (P < 0.0001) and the T2D group (19–36%) (P = 0.02). […] in an unadjusted logistic regression model, youth with T2D were four times more likely to develop DPN compared with those with T1D, and though this association was attenuated, it remained significant independent of age, sex, height, and glycemic control (OR 2.99 [1.91; 4.67], P < 0.001)”.

“The prevalence estimates for DPN found in our study for youth with T2D are similar to those in the Australian cohort (8) but lower for youth with T1D than those reported in the Danish (7) and Australian (8) cohorts. The nationwide Danish Study Group for Diabetes in Childhood reported a prevalence of 62% among 339 adolescents and youth with T1D (age 12–27 years, duration 9–25 years, and HbA1c 9.7 ± 1.7%) using the vibration perception threshold to assess DPN (7). The higher prevalence in this cohort compared with ours (62 vs. 7%) could be due to the longer duration of diabetes (9–25 vs. 5–13 years) and reliance on a single measure of neuropathy (vibration perception threshold) as opposed to our use of the MNSI, which includes vibration as well as other indicators of neuropathy. In the Australian study, Eppens et al. (8) reported abnormalities in peripheral nerve function in 27% of the 1,433 adolescents with T1D (median age 15.7 years, median diabetes duration 6.8 years, and mean HbA1c 8.5%) and 21% of the 68 adolescents with T2D (median age 15.3 years, median diabetes duration 1.3 years, and mean HbA1c 7.3%) based on thermal and vibration perception threshold. These data are thus reminiscent of the persistent inconsistencies in the definition of DPN, which are reflected in the wide range of prevalence estimates being reported.”

“The alarming rise in rates of DPN for every 5-year increase in duration, coupled with poor glycemic control and dyslipidemia, in this cohort reinforces the need for clinicians rendering care to youth with diabetes to be vigilant in screening for DPN and identifying any risk factors that could potentially be modified to alter the course of the disease (2830). The modifiable risk factors that could be targeted in this young population include better glycemic control, treatment of dyslipidemia, and smoking cessation (29,30) […]. The sharp increase in rates of DPN over time is a reminder that DPN is one of the complications of diabetes that must be a part of the routine annual screening for youth with diabetes.”

v. Diabetes and Hypertension: A Position Statement by the American Diabetes Association.

“Hypertension is common among patients with diabetes, with the prevalence depending on type and duration of diabetes, age, sex, race/ethnicity, BMI, history of glycemic control, and the presence of kidney disease, among other factors (13). Furthermore, hypertension is a strong risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure, and microvascular complications. ASCVD — defined as acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction (MI), angina, coronary or other arterial revascularization, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral arterial disease presumed to be of atherosclerotic origin — is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality for individuals with diabetes and is the largest contributor to the direct and indirect costs of diabetes. Numerous studies have shown that antihypertensive therapy reduces ASCVD events, heart failure, and microvascular complications in people with diabetes (48). Large benefits are seen when multiple risk factors are addressed simultaneously (9). There is evidence that ASCVD morbidity and mortality have decreased for people with diabetes since 1990 (10,11) likely due in large part to improvements in blood pressure control (1214). This Position Statement is intended to update the assessment and treatment of hypertension among people with diabetes, including advances in care since the American Diabetes Association (ADA) last published a Position Statement on this topic in 2003 (3).”

“Hypertension is defined as a sustained blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg. This definition is based on unambiguous data that levels above this threshold are strongly associated with ASCVD, death, disability, and microvascular complications (1,2,2427) and that antihypertensive treatment in populations with baseline blood pressure above this range reduces the risk of ASCVD events (46,28,29). The “sustained” aspect of the hypertension definition is important, as blood pressure has considerable normal variation. The criteria for diagnosing hypertension should be differentiated from blood pressure treatment targets.

Hypertension diagnosis and management can be complicated by two common conditions: masked hypertension and white-coat hypertension. Masked hypertension is defined as a normal blood pressure in the clinic or office (<140/90 mmHg) but an elevated home blood pressure of ≥135/85 mmHg (30); the lower home blood pressure threshold is based on outcome studies (31) demonstrating that lower home blood pressures correspond to higher office-based measurements. White-coat hypertension is elevated office blood pressure (≥140/90 mmHg) and normal (untreated) home blood pressure (<135/85 mmHg) (32). Identifying these conditions with home blood pressure monitoring can help prevent overtreatment of people with white-coat hypertension who are not at elevated risk of ASCVD and, in the case of masked hypertension, allow proper use of medications to reduce side effects during periods of normal pressure (33,34).”

“Diabetic autonomic neuropathy or volume depletion can cause orthostatic hypotension (35), which may be further exacerbated by antihypertensive medications. The definition of orthostatic hypotension is a decrease in systolic blood pressure of 20 mmHg or a decrease in diastolic blood pressure of 10 mmHg within 3 min of standing when compared with blood pressure from the sitting or supine position (36). Orthostatic hypotension is common in people with type 2 diabetes and hypertension and is associated with an increased risk of mortality and heart failure (37).

It is important to assess for symptoms of orthostatic hypotension to individualize blood pressure goals, select the most appropriate antihypertensive agents, and minimize adverse effects of antihypertensive therapy.”

“Taken together, […] meta-analyses consistently show that treating patients with baseline blood pressure ≥140 mmHg to targets <140 mmHg is beneficial, while more intensive targets may offer additional though probably less robust benefits. […] Overall, compared with people without diabetes, the relative benefits of antihypertensive treatment are similar, and absolute benefits may be greater (5,8,40). […] Multiple-drug therapy is often required to achieve blood pressure targets, particularly in the setting of diabetic kidney disease. However, the use of both ACE inhibitors and ARBs in combination is not recommended given the lack of added ASCVD benefit and increased rate of adverse events — namely, hyperkalemia, syncope, and acute kidney injury (7173). Titration of and/or addition of further blood pressure medications should be made in a timely fashion to overcome clinical inertia in achieving blood pressure targets. […] there is an absence of high-quality data available to guide blood pressure targets in type 1 diabetes. […] Of note, diastolic blood pressure, as opposed to systolic blood pressure, is a key variable predicting cardiovascular outcomes in people under age 50 years without diabetes and may be prioritized in younger adults (46,47). Though convincing data are lacking, younger adults with type 1 diabetes might more easily achieve intensive blood pressure levels and may derive substantial long-term benefit from tight blood pressure control.”

“Lifestyle management is an important component of hypertension treatment because it lowers blood pressure, enhances the effectiveness of some antihypertensive medications, promotes other aspects of metabolic and vascular health, and generally leads to few adverse effects. […] Lifestyle therapy consists of reducing excess body weight through caloric restriction, restricting sodium intake (<2,300 mg/day), increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables […] and low-fat dairy products […], avoiding excessive alcohol consumption […] (53), smoking cessation, reducing sedentary time (54), and increasing physical activity levels (55). These lifestyle strategies may also positively affect glycemic and lipid control and should be encouraged in those with even mildly elevated blood pressure.”

“Initial treatment for hypertension should include drug classes demonstrated to reduce cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes: ACE inhibitors (65,66), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) (65,66), thiazide-like diuretics (67), or dihydropyridine CCBs (68). For patients with albuminuria (urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio [UACR] ≥30 mg/g creatinine), initial treatment should include an ACE inhibitor or ARB in order to reduce the risk of progressive kidney disease […]. In the absence of albuminuria, risk of progressive kidney disease is low, and ACE inhibitors and ARBs have not been found to afford superior cardioprotection when compared with other antihypertensive agents (69). β-Blockers may be used for the treatment of coronary disease or heart failure but have not been shown to reduce mortality as blood pressure–lowering agents in the absence of these conditions (5,70).”

vi. High Illicit Drug Abuse and Suicide in Organ Donors With Type 1 Diabetes.

“Organ donors with type 1 diabetes represent a unique population for research. Through a combination of immunological, metabolic, and physiological analyses, researchers utilizing such tissues seek to understand the etiopathogenic events that result in this disorder. The Network for Pancreatic Organ Donors with Diabetes (nPOD) program collects, processes, and distributes pancreata and disease-relevant tissues to investigators throughout the world for this purpose (1). Information is also available, through medical records of organ donors, related to causes of death and psychological factors, including drug use and suicide, that impact life with type 1 diabetes.

We reviewed the terminal hospitalization records for the first 100 organ donors with type 1 diabetes in the nPOD database, noting cause, circumstance, and mechanism of death; laboratory results; and history of illicit drug use. Donors were 45% female and 79% Caucasian. Mean age at time of death was 28 years (range 4–61) with mean disease duration of 16 years (range 0.25–52).”

“Documented suicide was found in 8% of the donors, with an average age at death of 21 years and average diabetes duration of 9 years. […] Similarly, a type 1 diabetes registry from the U.K. found that 6% of subjects’ deaths were attributed to suicide (2). […] Additionally, we observed a high rate of illicit substance abuse: 32% of donors reported or tested positive for illegal substances (excluding marijuana), and multidrug use was common. Cocaine was the most frequently abused substance. Alcohol use was reported in 35% of subjects, with marijuana use in 27%. By comparison, 16% of deaths in the U.K. study were deemed related to drug misuse (2).”

“We fully recognize the implicit biases of an organ donor–based population, which may not be […’may not be’ – well, I guess that’s one way to put it! – US] directly comparable to the general population. Nevertheless, the high rate of suicide and drug use should continue to spur our energy and resources toward caring for the emotional and psychological needs of those living with type 1 diabetes. The burden of type 1 diabetes extends far beyond checking blood glucose and administering insulin.”

January 10, 2018 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Studies | Leave a comment

Depression (II)

I have added some more quotes from the last half of the book as well as some more links to relevant topics below.

“The early drugs used in psychiatry were sedatives, as calming a patient was probably the only treatment that was feasible and available. Also, it made it easier to manage large numbers of individuals with small numbers of staff at the asylum. Morphine, hyoscine, chloral, and later bromide were all used in this way. […] Insulin coma therapy came into vogue in the 1930s following the work of Manfred Sakel […] Sakel initially proposed this treatment as a cure for schizophrenia, but its use gradually spread to mood disorders to the extent that asylums in Britain opened so-called insulin units. […] Recovery from the coma required administration of glucose, but complications were common and death rates ranged from 1–10 per cent. Insulin coma therapy was initially viewed as having tremendous benefits, but later re-examinations have highlighted that the results could also be explained by a placebo effect associated with the dramatic nature of the process or, tragically, because deprivation of glucose supplies to the brain may have reduced the person’s reactivity because it had induced permanent damage.”

“[S]ome respected scientists and many scientific journals remain ambivalent about the empirical evidence for the benefits of psychological therapies. Part of the reticence appears to result from the lack of very large-scale clinical trials of therapies (compared to international, multi-centre studies of medication). However, a problem for therapy research is that there is no large-scale funding from big business for therapy trials […] It is hard to implement optimum levels of quality control in research studies of therapies. A tablet can have the same ingredients and be prescribed in almost exactly the same way in different treatment centres and different countries. If a patient does not respond to this treatment, the first thing we can do is check if they receive the right medication in the correct dose for a sufficient period of time. This is much more difficult to achieve with psychotherapy and fuels concerns about how therapy is delivered and potential biases related to researcher allegiance (i.e. clinical centres that invent a therapy show better outcomes than those that did not) and generalizability (our ability to replicate the therapy model exactly in a different place with different therapists). […] Overall, the ease of prescribing a tablet, the more traditional evidence-base for the benefits of medication, and the lack of availability of trained therapists in some regions means that therapy still plays second fiddle to medications in the majority of treatment guidelines for depression. […] The mainstay of treatments offered to individuals with depression has changed little in the last thirty to forty years. Antidepressants are the first-line intervention recommended in most clinical guidelines”.

“[W]hilst some cases of mild–moderate depression can benefit from antidepressants (e.g. chronic mild depression of several years’ duration can often respond to medication), it is repeatedly shown that the only group who consistently benefit from antidepressants are those with severe depression. The problem is that in the real world, most antidepressants are actually prescribed for less severe cases, that is, the group least likely to benefit; which is part of the reason why the argument about whether antidepressants work is not going to go away any time soon.”

“The economic argument for therapy can only be sustained if it is shown that the long-term outcome of depression (fewer relapses and better quality of life) is improved by receiving therapy instead of medication or by receiving both therapy and medication. Despite claims about how therapies such as CBT, behavioural activation, IPT, or family therapy may work, the reality is that many of the elements included in these therapies are the same as elements described in all the other effective therapies (sometimes referred to as empirically supported therapies). The shared elements include forming a positive working alliance with the depressed person, sharing the model and the plan for therapy with the patient from day one, and helping the patient engage in active problem-solving, etc. Given the degree of overlap, it is hard to make a real case for using one empirically supported therapy instead of another. Also, there are few predictors (besides symptom severity and personal preference) that consistently show who will respond to one of these therapies rather than to medication. […] One of the reasons for some scepticism about the value of therapies for treating depression is that it has proved difficult to demonstrate exactly what mediates the benefits of these interventions. […] despite the enthusiasm for mindfulness, there were fewer than twenty high-quality research trials on its use in adults with depression by the end of 2015 and most of these studies had fewer than 100 participants. […] exercise improves the symptoms of depression compared to no treatment at all, but the currently available studies on this topic are less than ideal (with many problems in the design of the study or sample of participants included in the clinical trial). […] Exercise is likely to be a better option for those individuals whose mood improves from participating in the experience, rather than someone who is so depressed that they feel further undermined by the process or feel guilty about ‘not trying hard enough’ when they attend the programme.”

“Research […] indicates that treatment is important and a study from the USA in 2005 showed that those who took the prescribed antidepressant medications had a 20 per cent lower rate of absenteeism than those who did not receive treatment for their depression. Absence from work is only one half of the depression–employment equation. In recent times, a new concept ‘presenteeism’ has been introduced to try to describe the problem of individuals who are attending their place of work but have reduced efficiency (usually because their functioning is impaired by illness). As might be imagined, presenteeism is a common issue in depression and a study in the USA in 2007 estimated that a depressed person will lose 5–8 hours of productive work every week because the symptoms they experience directly or indirectly impair their ability to complete work-related tasks. For example, depression was associated with reduced productivity (due to lack of concentration, slowed physical and mental functioning, loss of confidence), and impaired social functioning”.

“Health economists do not usually restrict their estimates of the cost of a disorder simply to the funds needed for treatment (i.e. the direct health and social care costs). A comprehensive economic assessment also takes into account the indirect costs. In depression these will include costs associated with employment issues (e.g. absenteeism and presenteeism; sickness benefits), costs incurred by the patient’s family or significant others (e.g. associated with time away from work to care for someone), and costs arising from premature death such as depression-related suicides (so-called mortality costs). […] Studies from around the world consistently demonstrate that the direct health care costs of depression are dwarfed by the indirect costs. […] Interestingly, absenteeism is usually estimated to be about one-quarter of the costs of presenteeism.”

Jakob Klaesi. António Egas Moniz. Walter Jackson Freeman II.
Electroconvulsive therapy.
Psychosurgery.
Vagal nerve stimulation.
Chlorpromazine. Imipramine. Tricyclic antidepressant. MAOIs. SSRIs. John CadeMogens Schou. Lithium carbonate.
Psychoanalysis. CBT.
Thomas Szasz.
Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (Kirsch et al.).
Chronobiology. Chronobiotics. Melatonin.
Eric Kandel. BDNF.
The global burden of disease (Murray & Lopez) (the author discusses some of the data included in that publication).

January 8, 2018 Posted by | Books, Health Economics, Medicine, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology | Leave a comment

Depression (I)

Below I have added some quotes and links related to the first half of this book.

Quotes:

“One of the problems encountered in any discussion of depression is that the word is used to mean different things by different people. For many members of the public, the term depression is used to describe normal sadness. In clinical practice, the term depression can be used to describe negative mood states, which are symptoms that can occur in a range of illnesses (e.g. individuals with psychosis may also report depressed mood). However, the term depression can also be used to refer to a diagnosis. When employed in this way it is meant to indicate that a cluster of symptoms have all occurred together, with the most common changes being in mood, thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. Theoretically, all these symptoms need to be present to make a diagnosis of depressive disorder.”

“The absence of any laboratory tests in psychiatry means that the diagnosis of depression relies on clinical judgement and the recognition of patterns of symptoms. There are two main problems with this. First, the diagnosis represents an attempt to impose a ‘present/absent’ or ‘yes/no’ classification on a problem that, in reality, is dimensional and varies in duration and severity. Also, many symptoms are likely to show some degree of overlap with pre-existing personality traits. Taken together, this means there is an ongoing concern about the point at which depression or depressive symptoms should be regarded as a mental disorder, that is, where to situate the dividing line on a continuum from health to normal sadness to illness. Second, for many years, there was a lack of consistent agreement on what combination of symptoms and impaired functioning would benefit from clinical intervention. This lack of consensus on the threshold for treatment, or for deciding which treatment to use, is a major source of problems to this day. […] A careful inspection of the criteria for identifying a depressive disorder demonstrates that diagnosis is mainly reliant on the cross-sectional assessment of the way the person presents at that moment in time. It is also emphasized that the current presentation should represent a change from the person’s usual state, as this step helps to begin the process of differentiating illness episodes from long-standing personality traits. Clarifying the longitudinal history of any lifetime problems can help also to establish, for example, whether the person has previously experienced mania (in which case their diagnosis will be revised to bipolar disorder), or whether they have a history of chronic depression, with persistent symptoms that may be less severe but are nevertheless very debilitating (this is usually called dysthymia). In addition, it is important to assess whether the person has another mental or physical disorder as well as these may frequently co-occur with depression. […] In the absence of diagnostic tests, the current classifications still rely on expert consensus regarding symptom profiles.”

“In summary, for a classification system to have utility it needs to be reliable and valid. If a diagnosis is reliable doctors will all make the same diagnosis when they interview patients who present with the same set of symptoms. If a diagnosis has predictive validity it means that it is possible to forecast the future course of the illness in individuals with the same diagnosis and to anticipate their likely response to different treatments. For many decades, the lack of reliability so undermined the credibility of psychiatric diagnoses that most of the revisions of the classification systems between the 1950s and 2010 focused on improving diagnostic reliability. However, insufficient attention has been given to validity and until this is improved, the criteria used for diagnosing depressive disorders will continue to be regarded as somewhat arbitrary […]. Weaknesses in the systems for the diagnosis and classification of depression are frequently raised in discussions about the existence of depression as a separate entity and concerns about the rationale for treatment. It is notable that general medicine uses a similar approach to making decisions regarding the health–illness dimension. For example, levels of blood pressure exist on a continuum. However, when an individual’s blood pressure measurement reaches a predefined level, it is reported that the person now meets the criteria specified for the diagnosis of hypertension (high blood pressure). Depending on the degree of variation from the norm or average values for their age and gender, the person will be offered different interventions. […] This approach is widely accepted as a rational approach to managing this common physical health problem, yet a similar ‘stepped care’ approach to depression is often derided.”

“There are few differences in the nature of the symptoms experienced by men and women who are depressed, but there may be gender differences in how their distress is expressed or how they react to the symptoms. For example, men may be more likely to become withdrawn rather than to seek support from or confide in other people, they may become more outwardly hostile and have a greater tendency to use alcohol to try to cope with their symptoms. It is also clear that it may be more difficult for men to accept that they have a mental health problem and they are more likely to deny it, delay seeking help, or even to refuse help. […] becoming unemployed, retirement, and loss of a partner and change of social roles can all be risk factors for depression in men. In addition, chronic physical health problems or increasing disability may also act as a precipitant. The relationship between physical illness and depression is complex. When people are depressed they may subjectively report that their general health is worse than that of other people; likewise, people who are ill or in pain may react by becoming depressed. Certain medical problems such as an under-functioning thyroid gland (hypothyroidism) may produce symptoms that are virtually indistinguishable from depression. Overall, the rate of depression in individuals with a chronic physical disease is almost three times higher than those without such problems.”

“A long-standing problem in gathering data about suicide is that many religions and cultures regard it as a sin or an illegal act. This has had several consequences. For example, coroners and other public officials often strive to avoid identifying suspicious deaths as a suicide, meaning that the actual rates of suicide may be under-reported.”

“In Beck’s [depression] model, it is proposed that an individual’s interpretations of events or experiences are encapsulated in automatic thoughts, which arise immediately following the event or even at the same time. […] Beck suggested that these automatic thoughts occur at a conscious level and can be accessible to the individual, although they may not be actively aware of them because they are not concentrating on them. The appraisals that occur in specific situations largely determine the person’s emotional and behavioural responses […] [I]n depression, the content of a person’s thinking is dominated by negative views of themselves, their world, and their future (the so-called negative cognitive triad). Beck’s theory suggests that the themes included in the automatic thoughts are generated via the activation of underlying cognitive structures, called dysfunctional beliefs (or cognitive schemata). All individuals develop a set of rules or ‘silent assumptions’ derived from early learning experiences. Whilst automatic thoughts are momentary, event-specific cognitions, the underlying beliefs operate across a variety of situations and are more permanent. Most of the underlying beliefs held by the average individual are quite adaptive and guide our attempts to act and react in a considered way. Individuals at risk of depression are hypothesized to hold beliefs that are maladaptive and can have an unhelpful influence on them. […] faulty information processing contributes to further deterioration in a person’s mood, which sets up a vicious cycle with more negative mood increasing the risk of negative interpretations of day-to-day life experiences and these negative cognitions worsening the depressed mood. Beck suggested that the underlying beliefs that render an individual vulnerable to depression may be broadly categorized into beliefs about being helpless or unlovable. […] Beliefs about ‘the self’ seem especially important in the maintenance of depression, particularly when connected with low or variable self-esteem.”

“[U]nidimensional models, such as the monoamine hypothesis or the social origins of depression model, are important building blocks for understanding depression. However, in reality there is no one cause and no single pathway to depression and […] multiple factors increase vulnerability to depression. Whether or not someone at risk of depression actually develops the disorder is partly dictated by whether they are exposed to certain types of life events, the perceived level of threat or distress associated with those events (which in turn is influenced by cognitive and emotional reactions and temperament), their ability to cope with these experiences (their resilience or adaptability under stress), and the functioning of their biological stress-sensitivity systems (including the thresholds for switching on their body’s stress responses).”

Some links:

Humorism. Marsilio Ficino. Thomas Willis. William Cullen. Philippe Pinel. Benjamin Rush. Emil Kraepelin. Karl Leonhard. Sigmund Freud.
Depression.
Relation between depression and sociodemographic factors.
Bipolar disorder.
Postnatal depression. Postpartum psychosis.
Epidemiology of suicide. Durkheim’s typology of suicide.
Suicide methods.
Reserpine.
Neuroendocrine hypothesis of depression. HPA (Hypothalamic–Pituitary–Adrenal) axis.
Cognitive behavioral therapy.
Coping responses.
Brown & Harris (1978).
5-HTTLPR.

January 5, 2018 Posted by | Books, Medicine, Psychiatry, Psychology | Leave a comment

Random stuff

I have almost stopped posting posts like these, which has resulted in the accumulation of a very large number of links and studies which I figured I might like to blog at some point. This post is mainly an attempt to deal with the backlog – I won’t cover the material in too much detail.

i. Do Bullies Have More Sex? The answer seems to be a qualified yes. A few quotes:

“Sexual behavior during adolescence is fairly widespread in Western cultures (Zimmer-Gembeck and Helfland 2008) with nearly two thirds of youth having had sexual intercourse by the age of 19 (Finer and Philbin 2013). […] Bullying behavior may aid in intrasexual competition and intersexual selection as a strategy when competing for mates. In line with this contention, bullying has been linked to having a higher number of dating and sexual partners (Dane et al. 2017; Volk et al. 2015). This may be one reason why adolescence coincides with a peak in antisocial or aggressive behaviors, such as bullying (Volk et al. 2006). However, not all adolescents benefit from bullying. Instead, bullying may only benefit adolescents with certain personality traits who are willing and able to leverage bullying as a strategy for engaging in sexual behavior with opposite-sex peers. Therefore, we used two independent cross-sectional samples of older and younger adolescents to determine which personality traits, if any, are associated with leveraging bullying into opportunities for sexual behavior.”

“…bullying by males signal the ability to provide good genes, material resources, and protect offspring (Buss and Shackelford 1997; Volk et al. 2012) because bullying others is a way of displaying attractive qualities such as strength and dominance (Gallup et al. 2007; Reijntjes et al. 2013). As a result, this makes bullies attractive sexual partners to opposite-sex peers while simultaneously suppressing the sexual success of same-sex rivals (Gallup et al. 2011; Koh and Wong 2015; Zimmer-Gembeck et al. 2001). Females may denigrate other females, targeting their appearance and sexual promiscuity (Leenaars et al. 2008; Vaillancourt 2013), which are two qualities relating to male mate preferences. Consequently, derogating these qualities lowers a rivals’ appeal as a mate and also intimidates or coerces rivals into withdrawing from intrasexual competition (Campbell 2013; Dane et al. 2017; Fisher and Cox 2009; Vaillancourt 2013). Thus, males may use direct forms of bullying (e.g., physical, verbal) to facilitate intersexual selection (i.e., appear attractive to females), while females may use relational bullying to facilitate intrasexual competition, by making rivals appear less attractive to males.”

The study relies on the use of self-report data, which I find very problematic – so I won’t go into the results here. I’m not quite clear on how those studies mentioned in the discussion ‘have found self-report data [to be] valid under conditions of confidentiality’ – and I remain skeptical. You’ll usually want data from independent observers (e.g. teacher or peer observations) when analyzing these kinds of things. Note in the context of the self-report data problem that if there’s a strong stigma associated with being bullied (there often is, or bullying wouldn’t work as well), asking people if they have been bullied is not much better than asking people if they’re bullying others.

ii. Some topical advice that some people might soon regret not having followed, from the wonderful Things I Learn From My Patients thread:

“If you are a teenage boy experimenting with fireworks, do not empty the gunpowder from a dozen fireworks and try to mix it in your mother’s blender. But if you do decide to do that, don’t hold the lid down with your other hand and stand right over it. This will result in the traumatic amputation of several fingers, burned and skinned forearms, glass shrapnel in your face, and a couple of badly scratched corneas as a start. You will spend months in rehab and never be able to use your left hand again.”

iii. I haven’t talked about the AlphaZero-Stockfish match, but I was of course aware of it and did read a bit about that stuff. Here’s a reddit thread where one of the Stockfish programmers answers questions about the match. A few quotes:

“Which of the two is stronger under ideal conditions is, to me, neither particularly interesting (they are so different that it’s kind of like comparing the maximum speeds of a fish and a bird) nor particularly important (since there is only one of them that you and I can download and run anyway). What is super interesting is that we have two such radically different ways to create a computer chess playing entity with superhuman abilities. […] I don’t think there is anything to learn from AlphaZero that is applicable to Stockfish. They are just too different, you can’t transfer ideas from one to the other.”

“Based on the 100 games played, AlphaZero seems to be about 100 Elo points stronger under the conditions they used. The current development version of Stockfish is something like 40 Elo points stronger than the version used in Google’s experiment. There is a version of Stockfish translated to hand-written x86-64 assembly language that’s about 15 Elo points stronger still. This adds up to roughly half the Elo difference between AlphaZero and Stockfish shown in Google’s experiment.”

“It seems that Stockfish was playing with only 1 GB for transposition tables (the area of memory used to store data about the positions previously encountered in the search), which is way too little when running with 64 threads.” [I seem to recall a comp sci guy observing elsewhere that this was less than what was available to his smartphone version of Stockfish, but I didn’t bookmark that comment].

“The time control was a very artificial fixed 1 minute/move. That’s not how chess is traditionally played. Quite a lot of effort has gone into Stockfish’s time management. It’s pretty good at deciding when to move quickly, and when to spend a lot of time on a critical decision. In a fixed time per move game, it will often happen that the engine discovers that there is a problem with the move it wants to play just before the time is out. In a regular time control, it would then spend extra time analysing all alternative moves and trying to find a better one. When you force it to move after exactly one minute, it will play the move it already know is bad. There is no doubt that this will cause it to lose many games it would otherwise have drawn.”

iv. Thrombolytics for Acute Ischemic Stroke – no benefit found.

“Thrombolysis has been rigorously studied in >60,000 patients for acute thrombotic myocardial infarction, and is proven to reduce mortality. It is theorized that thrombolysis may similarly benefit ischemic stroke patients, though a much smaller number (8120) has been studied in relevant, large scale, high quality trials thus far. […] There are 12 such trials 1-12. Despite the temptation to pool these data the studies are clinically heterogeneous. […] Data from multiple trials must be clinically and statistically homogenous to be validly pooled.14 Large thrombolytic studies demonstrate wide variations in anatomic stroke regions, small- versus large-vessel occlusion, clinical severity, age, vital sign parameters, stroke scale scores, and times of administration. […] Examining each study individually is therefore, in our opinion, both more valid and more instructive. […] Two of twelve studies suggest a benefit […] In comparison, twice as many studies showed harm and these were stopped early. This early stoppage means that the number of subjects in studies demonstrating harm would have included over 2400 subjects based on originally intended enrollments. Pooled analyses are therefore missing these phantom data, which would have further eroded any aggregate benefits. In their absence, any pooled analysis is biased toward benefit. Despite this, there remain five times as many trials showing harm or no benefit (n=10) as those concluding benefit (n=2), and 6675 subjects in trials demonstrating no benefit compared to 1445 subjects in trials concluding benefit.”

“Thrombolytics for ischemic stroke may be harmful or beneficial. The answer remains elusive. We struggled therefore, debating between a ‘yellow’ or ‘red’ light for our recommendation. However, over 60,000 subjects in trials of thrombolytics for coronary thrombosis suggest a consistent beneficial effect across groups and subgroups, with no studies suggesting harm. This consistency was found despite a very small mortality benefit (2.5%), and a very narrow therapeutic window (1% major bleeding). In comparison, the variation in trial results of thrombolytics for stroke and the daunting but consistent adverse effect rate caused by ICH suggested to us that thrombolytics are dangerous unless further study exonerates their use.”

“There is a Cochrane review that pooled estimates of effect. 17 We do not endorse this choice because of clinical heterogeneity. However, we present the NNT’s from the pooled analysis for the reader’s benefit. The Cochrane review suggested a 6% reduction in disability […] with thrombolytics. This would mean that 17 were treated for every 1 avoiding an unfavorable outcome. The review also noted a 1% increase in mortality (1 in 100 patients die because of thrombolytics) and a 5% increase in nonfatal intracranial hemorrhage (1 in 20), for a total of 6% harmed (1 in 17 suffers death or brain hemorrhage).”

v. Suicide attempts in Asperger Syndrome. An interesting finding: “Over 35% of individuals with AS reported that they had attempted suicide in the past.”

Related: Suicidal ideation and suicide plans or attempts in adults with Asperger’s syndrome attending a specialist diagnostic clinic: a clinical cohort study.

“374 adults (256 men and 118 women) were diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome in the study period. 243 (66%) of 367 respondents self-reported suicidal ideation, 127 (35%) of 365 respondents self-reported plans or attempts at suicide, and 116 (31%) of 368 respondents self-reported depression. Adults with Asperger’s syndrome were significantly more likely to report lifetime experience of suicidal ideation than were individuals from a general UK population sample (odds ratio 9·6 [95% CI 7·6–11·9], p<0·0001), people with one, two, or more medical illnesses (p<0·0001), or people with psychotic illness (p=0·019). […] Lifetime experience of depression (p=0·787), suicidal ideation (p=0·164), and suicide plans or attempts (p=0·06) did not differ significantly between men and women […] Individuals who reported suicide plans or attempts had significantly higher Autism Spectrum Quotient scores than those who did not […] Empathy Quotient scores and ages did not differ between individuals who did or did not report suicide plans or attempts (table 4). Patients with self-reported depression or suicidal ideation did not have significantly higher Autism Spectrum Quotient scores, Empathy Quotient scores, or age than did those without depression or suicidal ideation”.

The fact that people with Asperger’s are more likely to be depressed and contemplate suicide is consistent with previous observations that they’re also more likely to die from suicide – for example a paper I blogged a while back found that in that particular (large Swedish population-based cohort-) study, people with ASD were more than 7 times as likely to die from suicide than were the comparable controls.

Also related: Suicidal tendencies hard to spot in some people with autism.

This link has some great graphs and tables of suicide data from the US.

Also autism-related: Increased perception of loudness in autism. This is one of the ‘important ones’ for me personally – I am much more sound-sensitive than are most people.

vi. Early versus Delayed Invasive Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

“Earlier trials have shown that a routine invasive strategy improves outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. However, the optimal timing of such intervention remains uncertain. […] We randomly assigned 3031 patients with acute coronary syndromes to undergo either routine early intervention (coronary angiography ≤24 hours after randomization) or delayed intervention (coronary angiography ≥36 hours after randomization). The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months. A prespecified secondary outcome was death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at 6 months. […] Early intervention did not differ greatly from delayed intervention in preventing the primary outcome, but it did reduce the rate of the composite secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia and was superior to delayed intervention in high-risk patients.”

vii. Some wikipedia links:

Behrens–Fisher problem.
Sailing ship tactics (I figured I had to read up on this if I were to get anything out of the Aubrey-Maturin books).
Anatomical terms of muscle.
Phatic expression (“a phatic expression […] is communication which serves a social function such as small talk and social pleasantries that don’t seek or offer any information of value.”)
Three-domain system.
Beringian wolf (featured).
Subdural hygroma.
Cayley graph.
Schur polynomial.
Solar neutrino problem.
Hadamard product (matrices).
True polar wander.
Newton’s cradle.

viii. Determinant versus permanent (mathematics – technical).

ix. Some years ago I wrote a few English-language posts about some of the various statistical/demographic properties of immigrants living in Denmark, based on numbers included in a publication by Statistics Denmark. I did it by translating the observations included in that publication, which was only published in Danish. I was briefly considering doing the same thing again when the 2017 data arrived, but I decided not to do it as I recalled that it took a lot of time to write those posts back then, and it didn’t seem to me to be worth the effort – but Danish readers might be interested to have a look at the data, if they haven’t already – here’s a link to the publication Indvandrere i Danmark 2017.

x. A banter blitz session with grandmaster Peter Svidler, who recently became the first Russian ever to win the Russian Chess Championship 8 times. He’s currently shared-second in the World Rapid Championship after 10 rounds and is now in the top 10 on the live rating list in both classical and rapid – seems like he’s had a very decent year.

xi. I recently discovered Dr. Whitecoat’s blog. The patient encounters are often interesting.

December 28, 2017 Posted by | Astronomy, autism, Biology, Cardiology, Chess, Computer science, History, Mathematics, Medicine, Neurology, Physics, Psychiatry, Psychology, Random stuff, Statistics, Studies, Wikipedia, Zoology | Leave a comment

National EM Board Review Course: Toxicology

Some links:

Flumazenil.
Naloxone.
Alcoholic Ketoacidosis.
Gastrointestinal decontamination in the acutely poisoned patient.
Chelation in Metal Intoxication.
Mudpiles – causes of high anion-gap metabolic acidosis.
Toxidromes.
Whole-bowel irrigation: Background, indications, contraindications…
Organophosphate toxicity.
Withdrawal syndromes.
Acetaminophen toxicity.
Alcohol withdrawal.
Wernicke syndrome.
Methanol toxicity.
Ethylene glycol toxicity.
Sympathomimetic toxicity.
Disulfiram toxicity.
Arsenic toxicity.
Barbiturate toxicity.
Beta-blocker toxicity.
Calcium channel blocker toxicity.
Carbon monoxide toxicity.
Caustic ingestions.
Clonidine toxicity.
Cyanide toxicity.
Digitalis toxicity.
Gamma-hydroxybutyrate toxicity.
Hydrocarbon toxicity.
CDC Facts About Hydrogen Fluoride (Hydrofluoric Acid).
Hydrogen Sulfide Toxicity.
Isoniazid toxicity.
Iron toxicity.
Lead toxicity.
Lithium toxicity.
Mercury toxicity.
Methemoglobinemia.
Mushroom toxicity.
Argyria.
Gyromitra mushroom toxicity.
Neuroleptic agent toxicity.
Neuroleptic malignant syndrome.
Oral hypoglycemic agent toxicity.
PCP toxicity.
Phenytoin toxicity.
Rodenticide toxicity.
Salicylate toxicity.
Serotonin syndrome.
TCA toxicity.

September 29, 2017 Posted by | Lectures, Medicine, Pharmacology, Psychiatry | Leave a comment

Depression and Heart Disease (II)

Below I have added some more observations from the book, which I gave four stars on goodreads.

“A meta-analysis of twin (and family) studies estimated the heritability of adult MDD around 40% [16] and this estimate is strikingly stable across different countries [17, 18]. If measurement error due to unreliability is taken into account by analysing MDD assessed on two occasions, heritability estimates increase to 66% [19]. Twin studies in children further show that there is already a large genetic contribution to depressive symptoms in youth, with heritability estimates varying between 50% and 80% [20–22]. […] Cardiovascular research in twin samples has suggested a clear-cut genetic contribution to hypertension (h2 = 61%) [30], fatal stroke (h2 = 32%) [31] and CAD (h2 = 57% in males and 38% in females) [32]. […] A very important, and perhaps underestimated, source of pleiotropy in the association of MDD and CAD are the major behavioural risk factors for CAD: smoking and physical inactivity. These factors are sometimes considered ‘environmental’, but twin studies have shown that such behaviours have a strong genetic component [33–35]. Heritability estimates for [many] established risk factors [for CAD – e.g. BMI, smoking, physical inactivity – US] are 50% or higher in most adult twin samples and these estimates remain remarkably similar across the adult life span [41–43].”

“The crucial question is whether the genetic factors underlying MDD also play a role in CAD and CAD risk factors. To test for an overlap in the genetic factors, a bivariate extension of the structural equation model for twin data can be used [57]. […] If the depressive symptoms in a twin predict the IL-6 level in his/her co-twin, this can only be explained by an underlying factor that affects both depression and IL-6 levels and is shared by members of a family. If the prediction is much stronger in MZ than in DZ twins, this signals that the underlying factor is their shared genetic make-up, rather than their shared (family) environment. […] It is important to note clearly here that genetic correlations do not prove the existence of pleiotropy, because genes that influence MDD may, through causal effects of MDD on CAD risk, also become ‘CAD genes’. The absence of a genetic correlation, however, can be used to falsify the existence of genetic pleiotropy. For instance, the hypothesis that genetic pleiotropy explains part of the association between depressive symptoms and IL-6 requires the genetic correlation between these traits to be significantly different from zero. [Furthermore,] the genetic correlation should have a positive value. A negative genetic correlation would signal that genes that increase the risk for depression decrease the risk for higher IL-6 levels, which would go against the genetic pleiotropy hypothesis. […] Su et al. [26] […] tested pleiotropy as a possible source of the association of depressive symptoms with Il-6 in 188 twin pairs of the Vietnam Era Twin (VET) Registry. The genetic correlation between depressive symptoms and IL-6 was found to be positive and significant (RA = 0.22, p = 0.046)”

“For the association between MDD and physical inactivity, the dominant hypothesis has not been that MDD causes a reduction in regular exercise, but instead that regular exercise may act as a protective factor against mood disorders. […] we used the twin method to perform a rigorous test of this popular hypothesis [on] 8558 twins and their family members using their longitudinal data across 2-, 4-, 7-, 9- and 11-year follow-up periods. In spite of sufficient statistical power, we found only the genetic correlation to be significant (ranging between *0.16 and *0.44 for different symptom scales and different time-lags). The environmental correlations were essentially zero. This means that the environmental factors that cause a person to take up exercise do not cause lower anxiety or depressive symptoms in that person, currently or at any future time point. In contrast, the genetic factors that cause a person to take up exercise also cause lower anxiety or depressive symptoms in that person, at the present and all future time points. This pattern of results falsifies the causal hypothesis and leaves genetic pleiotropy as the most likely source for the association between exercise and lower levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms in the population at large. […] Taken together, [the] studies support the idea that genetic pleiotropy may be a factor contributing to the increased risk for CAD in subjects suffering from MDD or reporting high counts of depressive symptoms. The absence of environmental correlations in the presence of significant genetic correlations for a number of the CAD risk factors (CFR, cholesterol, inflammation and regular exercise) suggests that pleiotropy is the sole reason for the association between MDD and these CAD risk factors, whereas for other CAD risk factors (e.g. smoking) and CAD incidence itself, pleiotropy may coexist with causal effects.”

“By far the most tested polymorphism in psychiatric genetics is a 43-base pair insertion or deletion in the promoter region of the serotonin transporter gene (5HTT, renamed SLC6A4). About 55% of Caucasians carry a long allele (L) with 16 repeat units. The short allele (S, with 14 repeat units) of this length polymorphism repeat (LPR) reduces transcriptional efficiency, resulting in decreased serotonin transporter expression and function [83]. Because serotonin plays a key role in one of the major theories of MDD [84], and because the most prescribed antidepressants act directly on this transporter, 5HTT is an obvious candidate gene for this disorder. […] The dearth of studies attempting to associate the 5HTTLPR to MDD or related personality traits tells a revealing story about the fate of most candidate genes in psychiatric genetics. Many conflicting findings have been reported, and the two largest studies failed to link the 5HTTLPR to depressive symptoms or clinical MDD [85, 86]. Even at the level of reviews and meta-analyses, conflicting conclusions have been drawn about the role of this polymorphism in the development of MDD [87, 88]. The initially promising explanation for discrepant findings – potential interactive effects of the 5HTTLPR and stressful life events [89] – did not survive meta-analysis [90].”

“Across the board, overlooking the wealth of candidate gene studies on MDD, one is inclined to conclude that this approach has failed to unambiguously identify genetic variants involved in MDD […]. Hope is now focused on the newer GWA [genome wide association] approach. […] At the time of writing, only two GWA studies had been published on MDD [81, 95]. […] In theory, the strategy to identify potential pleiotropic genes in the MDD–CAD relationship is extremely straightforward. We simply select the genes that occur in the lists of confirmed genes from the GWA studies for both traits. In practice, this is hard to do, because genetics in psychiatry is clearly lagging behind genetics in cardiology and diabetes medicine. […] What is shown by the reviewed twin studies is that some genetic variants may influence MDD and CAD risk factors. This can occur through one of three mechanisms: (a) the genetic variants that increase the risk for MDD become part of the heritability of CAD through a causal effect of MDD on CAD risk factors (causality); (b) the genetic variants that increase the risk for CAD become part of the heritability of MDD through a direct causal effect of CAD on MDD (reverse causality); (c) the genetic variants influence shared risk factors that independently increase the risk for MDD as well as CAD (pleiotropy). I suggest that to fully explain the MDD–CAD association we need to be willing to be open to the possibility that these three mechanisms co-exist. Even in the presence of true pleiotropic effects, MDD may influence CAD risk factors, and having CAD in turn may worsen the course of MDD.”

“Patients with depression are more likely to exhibit several unhealthy behaviours or avoid other health-promoting ones than those without depression. […] Patients with depression are more likely to have sleep disturbances [6]. […] sleep deprivation has been linked with obesity, diabetes and the metabolic syndrome [13]. […] Physical inactivity and depression display a complex, bidirectional relationship. Depression leads to physical inactivity and physical inactivity exacerbates depression [19]. […] smoking rates among those with depression are about twice that of the general population [29]. […] Poor attention to self-care is often a problem among those with major depressive disorder. In the most severe cases, those with depression may become inattentive to their personal hygiene. One aspect of this relationship that deserves special attention with respect to cardiovascular disease is the association of depression and periodontal disease. […] depression is associated with poor adherence to medical treatment regimens in many chronic illnesses, including heart disease. […] There is some evidence that among patients with an acute coronary syndrome, improvement in depression is associated with improvement in adherence. […] Individuals with depression are often socially withdrawn or isolated. It has been shown that patients with heart disease who are depressed have less social support [64], and that social isolation or poor social support is associated with increased mortality in heart disease patients [65–68]. […] [C]linicians who make recommendations to patients recovering from a heart attack should be aware that low levels of social support and social isolation are particularly common among depressed individuals and that high levels of social support appear to protect patients from some of the negative effects of depression [78].”

“Self-efficacy describes an individual’s self-confidence in his/her ability to accomplish a particular task or behaviour. Self-efficacy is an important construct to consider when one examines the psychological mechanisms linking depression and heart disease, since it influences an individual’s engagement in behaviour and lifestyle changes that may be critical to improving cardiovascular risk. Many studies on individuals with chronic illness show that depression is often associated with low self-efficacy [95–97]. […] Low self-efficacy is associated with poor adherence behaviour in patients with heart failure [101]. […] Much of the interest in self-efficacy comes from the fact that it is modifiable. Self-efficacy-enhancing interventions have been shown to improve cardiac patients’ self-efficacy and thereby improve cardiac health outcomes [102]. […] One problem with targeting self-efficacy in depressed heart disease patients is [however] that depressive symptoms reduce the effects of self-efficacy-enhancing interventions [105, 106].”

“Taken together, [the] SADHART and ENRICHD [studies] suggest, but do not prove, that antidepressant drug therapy in general, and SSRI treatment in particular, improve cardiovascular outcomes in depressed post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. […] even large epidemiological studies of depression and antidepressant treatment are not usually informative, because they confound the effects of depression and antidepressant treatment. […] However, there is one Finnish cohort study in which all subjects […] were followed up through a nationwide computerised database [17]. The purpose of this study was not to examine the relationship between depression and cardiac mortality, but rather to look at the relationship between antidepressant use and suicide. […] unexpectedly, ‘antidepressant use, and especially SSRI use, was associated with a marked reduction in total mortality (=49%, p < 0.001), mostly attributable to a decrease in cardiovascular deaths’. The study involved 15 390 patients with a mean follow-up of 3.4 years […] One of the marked differences between the SSRIs and the earlier tricyclic antidepressants is that the SSRIs do not cause cardiac death in overdose as the tricyclics do [41]. There has been literature that suggested that tricyclics even at therapeutic doses could be cardiotoxic and more problematic than SSRIs [42, 43]. What has been surprising is that both in the clinical trial data from ENRICHD and the epidemiological data from Finland, tricyclic treatment has also been associated with a decreased risk of mortality. […] Given that SSRI treatment of depression in the post-ACS period is safe, effective in reducing depressed mood, able to improve health behaviours and may reduce subsequent cardiac morbidity and mortality, it would seem obvious that treating depression is strongly indicated. However, the vast majority of post-ACS patients will not see a psychiatrically trained professional and many cases are not identified [33].”

“That depression is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is no longer open to question. Similarly, there is no question that the risk of morbidity and mortality increases with increasing severity of depression. Questions remain about the mechanisms that underlie this association, whether all types of depression carry the same degree of risk and to what degree treating depression reduces that risk. There is no question that the benefits of treating depression associated with coronary artery disease far outweigh the risks.”

“Two competing trends are emerging in research on psychotherapy for depression in cardiac patients. First, the few rigorous RCTs that have been conducted so far have shown that even the most efficacious of the current generation of interventions produce relatively modest outcomes. […] Second, there is a growing recognition that, even if an intervention is highly efficacious, it may be difficult to translate into clinical practice if it requires intensive or extensive contacts with a highly trained, experienced, clinically sophisticated psychotherapist. It can even be difficult to implement such interventions in the setting of carefully controlled, randomised efficacy trials. Consequently, there are efforts to develop simpler, more efficient interventions that can be delivered by a wider variety of interventionists. […] Although much more work remains to be done in this area, enough is already known about psychotherapy for comorbid depression in heart disease to suggest that a higher priority should be placed on translation of this research into clinical practice. In many cases, cardiac patients do not receive any treatment for their depression.”

August 14, 2017 Posted by | Books, Cardiology, Diabetes, Genetics, Medicine, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology | Leave a comment

Depression and Heart Disease (I)

I’m currently reading this book. It’s a great book, with lots of interesting observations.

Below I’ve added some quotes from the book.

“Frasure-Smith et al. [1] demonstrated that patients diagnosed with depression post MI [myocardial infarction, US] were more than five times more likely to die from cardiac causes by 6 months than those without major depression. At 18 months, cardiac mortality had reached 20% in patients with major depression, compared with only 3% in non-depressed patients [5]. Recent work has confirmed and extended these findings. A meta-analysis of 22 studies of post-MI subjects found that post-MI depression was associated with a 2.0–2.5 increased risk of negative cardiovascular outcomes [6]. Another meta-analysis examining 20 studies of subjects with MI, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), angioplasty or angiographically documented CAD found a twofold increased risk of death among depressed compared with non-depressed patients [7]. Though studies included in these meta-analyses had substantial methodological variability, the overall results were quite similar [8].”

“Blumenthal et al. [31] published the largest cohort study (N = 817) to date on depression in patients undergoing CABG and measured depression scores, using the CES-D, before and at 6 months after CABG. Of those patients, 26% had minor depression (CES-D score 16–26) and 12% had moderate to severe depression (CES-D score =27). Over a mean follow-up of 5.2 years, the risk of death, compared with those without depression, was 2.4 (HR adjusted; 95% CI 1.4, 4.0) in patients with moderate to severe depression and 2.2 (95% CI 1.2, 4.2) in those whose depression persisted from baseline to follow-up at 6 months. This is one of the few studies that found a dose response (in terms of severity and duration) between depression and death in CABG in particular and in CAD in general.”

“Of the patients with known CAD but no recent MI, 12–23% have major depressive disorder by DSM-III or DSM-IV criteria [20, 21]. Two studies have examined the prognostic association of depression in patients whose CAD was confirmed by angiography. […] In [Carney et al.], a diagnosis of major depression by DSM-III criteria was the best predictor of cardiac events (MI, bypass surgery or death) at 1 year, more potent than other clinical risk factors such as impaired left ventricular function, severity of coronary disease and smoking among the 52 patients. The relative risk of a cardiac event was 2.2 times higher in patients with major depression than those with no depression.[…] Barefoot et al. [23] provided a larger sample size and longer follow-up duration in their study of 1250 patients who had undergone their first angiogram. […] Compared with non-depressed patients, those who were moderately to severely depressed had 69% higher odds of cardiac death and 78% higher odds of all-cause mortality. The mildly depressed had a 38% higher risk of cardiac death and a 57% higher risk of all-cause mortality than non-depressed patients.”

“Ford et al. [43] prospectively followed all male medical students who entered the Johns Hopkins Medical School from 1948 to 1964. At entry, the participants completed questionnaires about their personal and family history, health status and health behaviour, and underwent a standard medical examination. The cohort was then followed after graduation by mailed, annual questionnaires. The incidence of depression in this study was based on the mailed surveys […] 1190 participants [were included in the] analysis. The cumulative incidence of clinical depression in this population at 40 years of follow-up was 12%, with no evidence of a temporal change in the incidence. […] In unadjusted analysis, clinical depression was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of subsequent CAD. This association remained after adjustment for time-dependent covariates […]. The relative risk ratio for CAD development with versus without clinical depression was 2.12 (95% CI 1.24, 3.63), as was their relative risk ratio for future MI (95% CI 1.11, 4.06), after adjustment for age, baseline serum cholesterol level, parental MI, physical activity, time-dependent smoking, hypertension and diabetes. The median time from the first episode of clinical depression to first CAD event was 15 years, with a range of 1–44 years.”

“In the Women’s Ischaemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) study, 505 women referred for coronary angiography were followed for a mean of 4.9 years and completed the BDI [46]. Significantly increased mortality and cardiovascular events were found among women with elevated BDI scores, even after adjustment for age, cholesterol, stenosis score on angiography, smoking, diabetes, education, hyper-tension and body mass index (RR 3.1; 95% CI 1.5, 6.3). […] Further compelling evidence comes from a meta-analysis of 28 studies comprising almost 80 000 subjects [47], which demonstrated that, despite heterogeneity and differences in study quality, depression was consistently associated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases in general, including stroke.”

“The preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that depression is a risk factor for CAD [coronary artery disease, US] development. […] In summary, it is fair to conclude that depression plays a significant role in CAD development, independent of conventional risk factors, and its adverse impact endures over time. The impact of depression on the risk of MI is probably similar to that of smoking [52]. […] Results of longitudinal cohort studies suggest that depression occurs before the onset of clinically significant CAD […] Recent brain imaging studies have indicated that lesions resulting from cerebrovascular insufficiency may lead to clinical depression [54, 55]. Depression may be a clinical manifestation of atherosclerotic lesions in certain areas of the brain that cause circulatory deficits. The depression then exacerbates the onset of CAD. The exact aetiological mechanism of depression and CAD development remains to be clarified.”

“Rutledge et al. [65] conducted a meta-analysis in 2006 in order to better understand the prevalence of depression among patients with CHF and the magnitude of the relationship between depression and clinical outcomes in the CHF population. They found that clinically significant depression was present in 21.5% of CHF patients, varying by the use of questionnaires versus diagnostic interview (33.6% and 19.3%, respectively). The combined results suggested higher rates of death and secondary events (RR 2.1; 95% CI 1.7, 2.6), and trends toward increased health care use and higher rates of hospitalisation and emergency room visits among depressed patients.”

“In the past 15 years, evidence has been provided that physically healthy subjects who suffer from depression are at increased risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [1, 2], and that the occurrence of depression in patients with either unstable angina [3] or myocardial infarction (MI) [4] increases the risk for subsequent cardiac death. Moreover, epidemiological studies have proved that cardiovascular disease is a risk factor for depression, since the prevalence of depression in individuals with a recent MI or with coronary artery disease (CAD) or congestive heart failure has been found to be significantly higher than in the general population [5, 6]. […] findings suggest a bidirectional association between depression and cardiovascular disease. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying this association are, at present, largely unclear, but several candidate mechanisms have been proposed.”

“Autonomic nervous system dysregulation is one of the most plausible candidate mechanisms underlying the relationship between depression and ischaemic heart disease, since changes of autonomic tone have been detected in both depression and cardiovascular disease [7], and autonomic imbalance […] has been found to lower the threshold for ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation and sudden cardiac death in patients with CAD [8, 9]. […] Imbalance between prothrombotic and antithrombotic mechanisms and endothelial dysfunction have [also] been suggested to contribute to the increased risk of cardiac events in both medically well patients with depression and depressed patients with CAD. Depression has been consistently associated with enhanced platelet activation […] evidence has accumulated that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) reduce platelet hyperreactivity and hyperaggregation of depressed patients [39, 40] and reduce the release of the platelet/endothelial biomarkers ß-thromboglobulin, P-selectin and E-selectin in depressed patients with acute CAD [41]. This may explain the efficacy of SSRIs in reducing the risk of mortality in depressed patients with CAD [42–44].”

“[S]everal studies have shown that reduced endothelium-dependent flow-mediated vasodilatation […] occurs in depressed adults with or without CAD [48–50]. Atherosclerosis with subsequent plaque rupture and thrombosis is the main determinant of ischaemic cardiovascular events, and atherosclerosis itself is now recognised to be fundamentally an inflammatory disease [56]. Since activation of inflammatory processes is common to both depression and cardiovascular disease, it would be reasonable to argue that the link between depression and ischaemic heart disease might be mediated by inflammation. Evidence has been provided that major depression is associated with a significant increase in circulating levels of both pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6 and TNF-a, and inflammatory acute phase proteins, especially the C-reactive protein (CRP) [57, 58], and that antidepressant treatment is able to normalise CRP levels irrespective of whether or not patients are clinically improved [59]. […] Vaccarino et al. [79] assessed specifically whether inflammation is the mechanism linking depression to ischaemic cardiac events and found that, in women with suspected coronary ischaemia, depression was associated with increased circulating levels of CRP and IL-6 and was a strong predictor of ischaemic cardiac events”

“Major depression has been consistently associated with hyperactivity of the HPA axis, with a consequent overstimulation of the sympathetic nervous system, which in turn results in increased circulating catecholamine levels and enhanced serum cortisol concentrations [68–70]. This may cause an imbalance in sympathetic and parasympathetic activity, which results in elevated heart rate and blood pressure, reduced HRV [heart rate variability], disruption of ventricular electrophysiology with increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias as well as an increased risk of atherosclerotic plaque rupture and acute coronary thrombosis. […] In addition, glucocorticoids mobilise free fatty acids, causing endothelial inflammation and excessive clotting, and are associated with hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia and glucose dysregulation [88, 89], which are risk factors for CAD.”

“Most of the literature on [the] comorbidity [between major depressive disorder (MDD) and coronary artery disease (CAD), US] has tended to favour the hypothesis of a causal effect of MDD on CAD, but reversed causality has also been suggested to contribute. Patients with severe CAD at baseline, and consequently a worse prognosis, may simply be more prone to report mood disturbances than less severely ill patients. Furthermore, in pre-morbid populations, insipid atherosclerosis in cerebral vessels may cause depressive symptoms before the onset of actual cardiac or cerebrovascular events, a variant of reverse causality known as the ‘vascular depression’ hypothesis [2]. To resolve causality, comorbidity between MDD and CAD has been addressed in longitudinal designs. Most prospective studies reported that clinical depression or depressive symptoms at baseline predicted higher incidence of heart disease at follow-up [1], which seems to favour the hypothesis of causal effects of MDD. We need to remind ourselves, however […] [that] [p]rospective associations do not necessarily equate causation. Higher incidence of CAD in depressed individuals may reflect the operation of common underlying factors on MDD and CAD that become manifest in mental health at an earlier stage than in cardiac health. […] [T]he association between MDD and CAD may be due to underlying genetic factors that lead to increased symptoms of anxiety and depression, but may also independently influence the atherosclerotic process. This phenomenon, where low-level biological variation has effects on multiple complex traits at the organ and behavioural level, is called genetic ‘pleiotropy’. If present in a time-lagged form, that is if genetic effects on MDD risk precede effects of the same genetic variants on CAD risk, this phenomenon can cause longitudinal correlations that mimic a causal effect of MDD.”

 

August 12, 2017 Posted by | Books, Cardiology, Genetics, Medicine, Neurology, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Clinically Relevant Cognitive Impairment in Middle-Aged Adults With Childhood-Onset Type 1 Diabetes.

“Modest cognitive dysfunction is consistently reported in children and young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (1). Mental efficiency, psychomotor speed, executive functioning, and intelligence quotient appear to be most affected (2); studies report effect sizes between 0.2 and 0.5 (small to modest) in children and adolescents (3) and between 0.4 and 0.8 (modest to large) in adults (2). Whether effect sizes continue to increase as those with T1D age, however, remains unknown.

A key issue not yet addressed is whether aging individuals with T1D have an increased risk of manifesting “clinically relevant cognitive impairment,” defined by comparing individual cognitive test scores to demographically appropriate normative means, as opposed to the more commonly investigated “cognitive dysfunction,” or between-group differences in cognitive test scores. Unlike the extensive literature examining cognitive impairment in type 2 diabetes, we know of only one prior study examining cognitive impairment in T1D (4). This early study reported a higher rate of clinically relevant cognitive impairment among children (10–18 years of age) diagnosed before compared with after age 6 years (24% vs. 6%, respectively) or a non-T1D cohort (6%).”

“This study tests the hypothesis that childhood-onset T1D is associated with an increased risk of developing clinically relevant cognitive impairment detectable by middle age. We compared cognitive test results between adults with and without T1D and used demographically appropriate published norms (1012) to determine whether participants met criteria for impairment for each test; aging and dementia studies have selected a score ≥1.5 SD worse than the norm on that test, corresponding to performance at or below the seventh percentile (13).”

“During 2010–2013, 97 adults diagnosed with T1D and aged <18 years (age and duration 49 ± 7 and 41 ± 6 years, respectively; 51% female) and 138 similarly aged adults without T1D (age 49 ± 7 years; 55% female) completed extensive neuropsychological testing. Biomedical data on participants with T1D were collected periodically since 1986–1988.  […] The prevalence of clinically relevant cognitive impairment was five times higher among participants with than without T1D (28% vs. 5%; P < 0.0001), independent of education, age, or blood pressure. Effect sizes were large (Cohen d 0.6–0.9; P < 0.0001) for psychomotor speed and visuoconstruction tasks and were modest (d 0.3–0.6; P < 0.05) for measures of executive function. Among participants with T1D, prevalent cognitive impairment was related to 14-year average A1c >7.5% (58 mmol/mol) (odds ratio [OR] 3.0; P = 0.009), proliferative retinopathy (OR 2.8; P = 0.01), and distal symmetric polyneuropathy (OR 2.6; P = 0.03) measured 5 years earlier; higher BMI (OR 1.1; P = 0.03); and ankle-brachial index ≥1.3 (OR 4.2; P = 0.01) measured 20 years earlier, independent of education.”

“Having T1D was the only factor significantly associated with the between-group difference in clinically relevant cognitive impairment in our sample. Traditional risk factors for age-related cognitive impairment, in particular older age and high blood pressure (24), were not related to the between-group difference we observed. […] Similar to previous studies of younger adults with T1D (14,26), we found no relationship between the number of severe hypoglycemic episodes and cognitive impairment. Rather, we found that chronic hyperglycemia, via its associated vascular and metabolic changes, may have triggered structural changes in the brain that disrupt normal cognitive function.”

Just to be absolutely clear about these results: The type 1 diabetics they recruited in this study were on average not yet fifty years old, yet more than one in four of them were cognitively impaired to a clinically relevant degree. This is a huge effect. As they note later in the paper:

“Unlike previous reports of mild/modest cognitive dysfunction in young adults with T1D (1,2), we detected clinically relevant cognitive impairment in 28% of our middle-aged participants with T1D. This prevalence rate in our T1D cohort is comparable to the prevalence of mild cognitive impairment typically reported among community-dwelling adults aged 85 years and older (29%) (20).”

The type 1 diabetics included in the study had had diabetes for roughly a decade more than I have. And the number of cognitively impaired individuals in that sample corresponds roughly to what you find when you test random 85+ year-olds. Having type 1 diabetes is not good for your brain.

ii. Comment on Nunley et al. Clinically Relevant Cognitive Impairment in Middle-Aged Adults With Childhood-Onset Type 1 Diabetes.

This one is a short comment to the above paper, below I’ve quoted ‘the meat’ of the comment:

“While the […] study provides us with important insights regarding cognitive impairment in adults with type 1 diabetes, we regret that depression has not been taken into account. A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2014 identified significant objective cognitive impairment in adults and adolescents with depression regarding executive functioning, memory, and attention relative to control subjects (2). Moreover, depression is two times more common in adults with diabetes compared with those without this condition, regardless of type of diabetes (3). There is even evidence that the co-occurrence of diabetes and depression leads to additional health risks such as increased mortality and dementia (3,4); this might well apply to cognitive impairment as well. Furthermore, in people with diabetes, the presence of depression has been associated with the development of diabetes complications, such as retinopathy, and higher HbA1c values (3). These are exactly the diabetes-specific correlates that Nunley et al. (1) found.”

“We believe it is a missed opportunity that Nunley et al. (1) mainly focused on biological variables, such as hyperglycemia and microvascular disease, and did not take into account an emotional disorder widely represented among people with diabetes and closely linked to cognitive impairment. Even though severe or chronic cases of depression are likely to have been excluded in the group without type 1 diabetes based on exclusion criteria (1), data on the presence of depression (either measured through a diagnostic interview or by using a validated screening questionnaire) could have helped to interpret the present findings. […] Determining the role of depression in the relationship between cognitive impairment and type 1 diabetes is of significant importance. Treatment of depression might improve cognitive impairment both directly by alleviating cognitive depression symptoms and indirectly by improving treatment nonadherence and glycemic control, consequently lowering the risk of developing complications.”

iii. Prevalence of Diabetes and Diabetic Nephropathy in a Large U.S. Commercially Insured Pediatric Population, 2002–2013.

“[W]e identified 96,171 pediatric patients with diabetes and 3,161 pediatric patients with diabetic nephropathy during 2002–2013. We estimated prevalence of pediatric diabetes overall, by diabetes type, age, and sex, and prevalence of pediatric diabetic nephropathy overall, by age, sex, and diabetes type.”

“Although type 1 diabetes accounts for a majority of childhood and adolescent diabetes, type 2 diabetes is becoming more common with the increasing rate of childhood obesity and it is estimated that up to 45% of all new patients with diabetes in this age-group have type 2 diabetes (1,2). With the rising prevalence of diabetes in children, a rise in diabetes-related complications, such as nephropathy, is anticipated. Moreover, data suggest that the development of clinical macrovascular complications, neuropathy, and nephropathy may be especially rapid among patients with young-onset type 2 diabetes (age of onset <40 years) (36). However, the natural history of young patients with type 2 diabetes and resulting complications has not been well studied.”

I’m always interested in the identification mechanisms applied in papers like this one, and I’m a little confused about the high number of patients without prescriptions (almost one-third of patients); I sort of assume these patients do take (/are given) prescription drugs, but get them from sources not available to the researchers (parents get prescriptions for the antidiabetic drugs, and the researchers don’t have access to these data? Something like this..) but this is a bit unclear. The mechanism they employ in the paper is not perfect (no mechanism is), but it probably works:

“Patients who had one or more prescription(s) for insulin and no prescriptions for another antidiabetes medication were classified as having type 1 diabetes, while those who filled prescriptions for noninsulin antidiabetes medications were considered to have type 2 diabetes.”

When covering limitations of the paper, they observe incidentally in this context that:

“Klingensmith et al. (31) recently reported that in the initial month after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes around 30% of patients were treated with insulin only. Thus, we may have misclassified a small proportion of type 2 cases as type 1 diabetes or vice versa. Despite this, we found that 9% of patients had onset of type 2 diabetes at age <10 years, consistent with the findings of Klingensmith et al. (8%), but higher than reported by the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study (<3%) (31,32).”

Some more observations from the paper:

“There were 149,223 patients aged <18 years at first diagnosis of diabetes in the CCE database from 2002 through 2013. […] Type 1 diabetes accounted for a majority of the pediatric patients with diabetes (79%). Among these, 53% were male and 53% were aged 12 to <18 years at onset, while among patients with type 2 diabetes, 60% were female and 79% were aged 12 to <18 years at onset.”

“The overall annual prevalence of all diabetes increased from 1.86 to 2.82 per 1,000 during years 2002–2013; it increased on average by 9.5% per year from 2002 to 2006 and slowly increased by 0.6% after that […] The prevalence of type 1 diabetes increased from 1.48 to 2.32 per 1,000 during the study period (average increase of 8.5% per year from 2002 to 2006 and 1.4% after that; both P values <0.05). The prevalence of type 2 diabetes increased from 0.38 to 0.67 per 1,000 during 2002 through 2006 (average increase of 13.3% per year; P < 0.05) and then dropped from 0.56 to 0.49 per 1,000 during 2007 through 2013 (average decrease of 2.7% per year; P < 0.05). […] Prevalence of any diabetes increased by age, with the highest prevalence in patients aged 12 to <18 years (ranging from 3.47 to 5.71 per 1,000 from 2002 through 2013).” […] The annual prevalence of diabetes increased over the study period mainly because of increases in type 1 diabetes.”

“Dabelea et al. (8) reported, based on data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, that the annual prevalence of type 1 diabetes increased from 1.48 to 1.93 per 1,000 and from 0.34 to 0.46 per 1,000 for type 2 diabetes from 2001 to 2009 in U.S. youth. In our study, the annual prevalence of type 1 diabetes was 1.48 per 1,000 in 2002 and 2.10 per 1,000 in 2009, which is close to their reported prevalence.”

“We identified 3,161 diabetic nephropathy cases. Among these, 1,509 cases (47.7%) were of specific diabetic nephropathy and 2,253 (71.3%) were classified as probable cases. […] The annual prevalence of diabetic nephropathy in pediatric patients with diabetes increased from 1.16 to 3.44% between 2002 and 2013; it increased by on average 25.7% per year from 2002 to 2005 and slowly increased by 4.6% after that (both P values <0.05).”

Do note that the relationship between nephropathy prevalence and diabetes prevalence is complicated and that you cannot just explain an increase in the prevalence of nephropathy over time easily by simply referring to an increased prevalence of diabetes during the same time period. This would in fact be a very wrong thing to do, in part but not only on account of the data structure employed in this study. One problem which is probably easy to understand is that if more children got diabetes but the same proportion of those new diabetics got nephropathy, the diabetes prevalence would go up but the diabetic nephropathy prevalence would remain fixed; when you calculate the diabetic nephropathy prevalence you implicitly condition on diabetes status. But this just scratches the surface of the issues you encounter when you try to link these variables, because the relationship between the two variables is complicated; there’s an age pattern to diabetes risk, with risk (incidence) increasing with age (up to a point, after which it falls – in most samples I’ve seen in the past peak incidence in pediatric populations is well below the age of 18). However diabetes prevalence increases monotonously with age as long as the age-specific death rate of diabetics is lower than the age-specific incidence, because diabetes is chronic, and then on top of that you have nephropathy-related variables, which display diabetes-related duration-dependence (meaning that although nephropathy risk is also increasing with age when you look at that variable in isolation, that age-risk relationship is confounded by diabetes duration – a type 1 diabetic at the age of 12 who’s had diabetes for 10 years has a higher risk of nephropathy than a 16-year old who developed diabetes the year before). When a newly diagnosed pediatric patient is included in the diabetes sample here this will actually decrease the nephropathy prevalence in the short run, but not in the long run, assuming no changes in diabetes treatment outcomes over time. This is because the probability that that individual has diabetes-related kidney problems as a newly diagnosed child is zero, so he or she will unquestionably only contribute to the denominator during the first years of illness (the situation in the middle-aged type 2 context is different; here you do sometimes have newly-diagnosed patients who have developed complications already). This is one reason why it would be quite wrong to say that increased diabetes prevalence in this sample is the reason why diabetic nephropathy is increasing as well. Unless the time period you look at is very long (e.g. you have a setting where you follow all individuals with a diagnosis until the age of 18), the impact of increasing prevalence of one condition may well be expected to have a negative impact on the estimated risk of associated conditions, if those associated conditions display duration-dependence (which all major diabetes complications do). A second factor supporting a default assumption of increasing incidence of diabetes leading to an expected decreasing rate of diabetes-related complications is of course the fact that treatment options have tended to increase over time, and especially if you take a long view (look back 30-40 years) the increase in treatment options and improved medical technology have lead to improved metabolic control and better outcomes.

That both variables grew over time might be taken to indicate that both more children got diabetes and that a larger proportion of this increased number of children with diabetes developed kidney problems, but this stuff is a lot more complicated than it might look and it’s in particular important to keep in mind that, say, the 2005 sample and the 2010 sample do not include the same individuals, although there’ll of course be some overlap; in age-stratified samples like this you always have some level of implicit continuous replacement, with newly diagnosed patients entering and replacing the 18-year olds who leave the sample. As long as prevalence is constant over time, associated outcome variables may be reasonably easy to interpret, but when you have dynamic samples as well as increasing prevalence over time it gets difficult to say much with any degree of certainty unless you crunch the numbers in a lot of detail (and it might be difficult even if you do that). A factor I didn’t mention above but which is of course also relevant is that you need to be careful about how to interpret prevalence rates when you look at complications with high mortality rates (and late-stage diabetic nephropathy is indeed a complication with high mortality); in such a situation improvements in treatment outcomes may have large effects on prevalence rates but no effect on incidence. Increased prevalence is not always bad news, sometimes it is good news indeed. Gleevec substantially increased the prevalence of CML.

In terms of the prevalence-outcomes (/complication risk) connection, there are also in my opinion reasons to assume that there may be multiple causal pathways between prevalence and outcomes. For example a very low prevalence of a condition in a given area may mean that fewer specialists are educated to take care of these patients than would be the case for an area with a higher prevalence, and this may translate into a more poorly developed care infrastructure. Greatly increasing prevalence may on the other hand lead to a lower level of care for all patients with the illness, not just the newly diagnosed ones, due to binding budget constraints and care rationing. And why might you have changes in prevalence; might they not sometimes rather be related to changes in diagnostic practices, rather than changes in the True* prevalence? If that’s the case, you might not be comparing apples to apples when you’re comparing the evolving complication rates. There are in my opinion many reasons to believe that the relationship between chronic conditions and the complication rates of these conditions is far from simple to model.

All this said, kidney problems in children with diabetes is still rare, compared to the numbers you see when you look at adult samples with longer diabetes duration. It’s also worth distinguishing between microalbuminuria and overt nephropathy; children rarely proceed to develop diabetes-related kidney failure, although poor metabolic control may mean that they do develop this complication later, in early adulthood. As they note in the paper:

“It has been reported that overt diabetic nephropathy and kidney failure caused by either type 1 or type 2 diabetes are uncommon during childhood or adolescence (24). In this study, the annual prevalence of diabetic nephropathy for all cases ranged from 1.16 to 3.44% in pediatric patients with diabetes and was extremely low in the whole pediatric population (range 2.15 to 9.70 per 100,000), confirming that diabetic nephropathy is a very uncommon condition in youth aged <18 years. We observed that the prevalence of diabetic nephropathy increased in both specific and unspecific cases before 2006, with a leveling off of the specific nephropathy cases after 2005, while the unspecific cases continued to increase.”

iv. Adherence to Oral Glucose-Lowering Therapies and Associations With 1-Year HbA1c: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis in a Large Primary Care Database.

“Between a third and a half of medicines prescribed for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), a condition in which multiple medications are used to control cardiovascular risk factors and blood glucose (1,2), are not taken as prescribed (36). However, estimates vary widely depending on the population being studied and the way in which adherence to recommended treatment is defined.”

“A number of previous studies have used retrospective databases of electronic health records to examine factors that might predict adherence. A recent large cohort database examined overall adherence to oral therapy for T2DM, taking into account changes of therapy. It concluded that overall adherence was 69%, with individuals newly started on treatment being significantly less likely to adhere (19).”

“The impact of continuing to take glucose-lowering medicines intermittently, but not as recommended, is unknown. Medication possession (expressed as a ratio of actual possession to expected possession), derived from prescribing records, has been identified as a valid adherence measure for people with diabetes (7). Previous studies have been limited to small populations in managed-care systems in the U.S. and focused on metformin and sulfonylurea oral glucose-lowering treatments (8,9). Further studies need to be carried out in larger groups of people that are more representative of the general population.

The Clinical Practice Research Database (CPRD) is a long established repository of routine clinical data from more than 13 million patients registered with primary care services in England. […] The Genetics of Diabetes and Audit Research Tayside Study (GoDARTS) database is derived from integrated health records in Scotland with primary care, pharmacy, and hospital data on 9,400 patients with diabetes. […] We conducted a retrospective cohort study using [these databases] to examine the prevalence of nonadherence to treatment for type 2 diabetes and investigate its potential impact on HbA1c reduction stratified by type of glucose-lowering medication.”

“In CPRD and GoDARTS, 13% and 15% of patients, respectively, were nonadherent. Proportions of nonadherent patients varied by the oral glucose-lowering treatment prescribed (range 8.6% [thiazolidinedione] to 18.8% [metformin]). Nonadherent, compared with adherent, patients had a smaller HbA1c reduction (0.4% [4.4 mmol/mol] and 0.46% [5.0 mmol/mol] for CPRD and GoDARTs, respectively). Difference in HbA1c response for adherent compared with nonadherent patients varied by drug (range 0.38% [4.1 mmol/mol] to 0.75% [8.2 mmol/mol] lower in adherent group). Decreasing levels of adherence were consistently associated with a smaller reduction in HbA1c.”

“These findings show an association between adherence to oral glucose-lowering treatment, measured by the proportion of medication obtained on prescription over 1 year, and the corresponding decrement in HbA1c, in a population of patients newly starting treatment and continuing to collect prescriptions. The association is consistent across all commonly used oral glucose-lowering therapies, and the findings are consistent between the two data sets examined, CPRD and GoDARTS. Nonadherent patients, taking on average <80% of the intended medication, had about half the expected reduction in HbA1c. […] Reduced medication adherence for commonly used glucose-lowering therapies among patients persisting with treatment is associated with smaller HbA1c reductions compared with those taking treatment as recommended. Differences observed in HbA1c responses to glucose-lowering treatments may be explained in part by their intermittent use.”

“Low medication adherence is related to increased mortality (20). The mean difference in HbA1c between patients with MPR <80% and ≥80% is between 0.37% and 0.55% (4 mmol/mol and 6 mmol/mol), equivalent to up to a 10% reduction in death or an 18% reduction in diabetes complications (21).”

v. Health Care Transition in Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Perspectives of Adult Endocrinologists in the U.S.

“Empiric data are limited on best practices in transition care, especially in the U.S. (10,1316). Prior research, largely from the patient perspective, has highlighted challenges in the transition process, including gaps in care (13,1719); suboptimal pediatric transition preparation (13,20); increased post-transition hospitalizations (21); and patient dissatisfaction with the transition experience (13,1719). […] Young adults with type 1 diabetes transitioning from pediatric to adult care are at risk for adverse outcomes. Our objective was to describe experiences, resources, and barriers reported by a national sample of adult endocrinologists receiving and caring for young adults with type 1 diabetes.”

“We received responses from 536 of 4,214 endocrinologists (response rate 13%); 418 surveys met the eligibility criteria. Respondents (57% male, 79% Caucasian) represented 47 states; 64% had been practicing >10 years and 42% worked at an academic center. Only 36% of respondents reported often/always reviewing pediatric records and 11% reported receiving summaries for transitioning young adults with type 1 diabetes, although >70% felt that these activities were important for patient care.”

“A number of studies document deficiencies in provider hand-offs across other chronic conditions and point to the broader relevance of our findings. For example, in two studies of inflammatory bowel disease, adult gastroenterologists reported inadequacies in young adult transition preparation (31) and infrequent receipt of medical histories from pediatric providers (32). In a study of adult specialists caring for young adults with a variety of chronic diseases (33), more than half reported that they had no contact with the pediatric specialists.

Importantly, more than half of the endocrinologists in our study reported a need for increased access to mental health referrals for young adult patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly in nonacademic settings. Report of barriers to care was highest for patient scenarios involving mental health issues, and endocrinologists without easy access to mental health referrals were significantly more likely to report barriers to diabetes management for young adults with psychiatric comorbidities such as depression, substance abuse, and eating disorders.”

“Prior research (34,35) has uncovered the lack of mental health resources in diabetes care. In the large cross-national Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN) study (36) […] diabetes providers often reported not having the resources to manage mental health problems; half of specialist diabetes physicians felt unable to provide psychiatric support for patients and one-third did not have ready access to outside expertise in emotional or psychiatric matters. Our results, which resonate with the DAWN findings, are particularly concerning in light of the vulnerability of young adults with type 1 diabetes for adverse medical and mental health outcomes (4,34,37,38). […] In a recent report from the Mental Health Issues of Diabetes conference (35), which focused on type 1 diabetes, a major observation included the lack of trained mental health professionals, both in academic centers and the community, who are knowledgeable about the mental health issues germane to diabetes.”

August 3, 2017 Posted by | Diabetes, Epidemiology, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Statistics, Studies | Leave a comment

A few papers

i. To Conform or to Maintain Self-Consistency? Hikikomori Risk in Japan and the Deviation From Seeking Harmony.

A couple of data points and observations from the paper:

“There is an increasing number of youth in Japan who are dropping out of society and isolating themselves in their bedrooms from years to decades at a time. According to Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare’s first official 2003 guidelines on this culture-bound syndrome, hikikomori (social isolation syndrome) has the following specific diagnostic criteria: (1) no motivation to participate in school or work; (2) no signs of schizophrenia or any other known psychopathologies; and (3) persistence of social withdrawal for at least six months.”

“One obvious dilemma in studying hikikomori is that most of those suffering from hikikomori, by definition, do not seek treatment. More importantly, social isolation itself is not even a symptom of any of the DSM diagnosis often assigned to an individual afflicted with hikikomori […] The motivation for isolating oneself among a hikikomori is simply to avoid possible social interactions with others who might know or judge them (Zielenziger, 2006).”

“Saito’s (2010) and Sakai and colleagues’ (2011) data suggest that 10% to 15% of the hikikomori population suffer from an autism spectrum disorder. […] in the first epidemiological study conducted on hikikomori that was as close to a nation-wide random sample as possible, Koyama and colleagues (2010) conducted a face-to-face household survey, including a structured diagnostic interview, by randomly picking households and interviewing 4,134 individuals. They confirmed a hikikomori lifetime prevalence rate of 1.2% in their nationwide sample. Among these hikikomori individuals, the researchers found that only half suffered from a DSM-IV diagnosis. However, and more importantly, there was no particular diagnosis that was systematically associated with hikikomori. […] the researchers concluded that any DSM diagnosis was an epiphenomenon to hikikomori at best and that hikikomori is rather a “psychopathology characterized by impaired motivation” p. 72).”

ii. Does the ‘hikikomori’ syndrome of social withdrawal exist outside Japan?: A preliminary international investigation.

Purpose

To explore whether the ‘hikikomori’ syndrome (social withdrawal) described in Japan exists in other countries, and if so, how patients with the syndrome are diagnosed and treated.

Methods

Two hikikomori case vignettes were sent to psychiatrists in Australia, Bangladesh, India, Iran, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and the USA. Participants rated the syndrome’s prevalence in their country, etiology, diagnosis, suicide risk, and treatment.

Results

Out of 247 responses to the questionnaire (123 from Japan and 124 from other countries), 239 were enrolled in the analysis. Respondents’ felt the hikikomori syndrome is seen in all countries examined and especially in urban areas. Biopsychosocial, cultural, and environmental factors were all listed as probable causes of hikikomori, and differences among countries were not significant. Japanese psychiatrists suggested treatment in outpatient wards and some did not think that psychiatric treatment is necessary. Psychiatrists in other countries opted for more active treatment such as hospitalization.

Conclusions

Patients with the hikikomori syndrome are perceived as occurring across a variety of cultures by psychiatrists in multiple countries. Our results provide a rational basis for study of the existence and epidemiology of hikikomori in clinical or community populations in international settings.”

“Our results extend rather than clarify the debate over diagnosis of hikikomori. In our survey, a variety of diagnoses, such as psychosis, depression anxiety and personality disorders, were proffered. Opinions as to whether hikikomori cases can be diagnosed using ICD-10/DSV-IV criteria differed depending on the participants’ countries and the cases’ age of onset. […] a recent epidemiological survey in Japan reported approximately a fifty-fifty split between hikikomori who had experienced a psychiatric disorder and had not [14]. These data and other studies that have not been able to diagnose all cases of hikikomori may suggest the existence of ‘primary hikikomori’ that is not an expression of any other psychiatric disorder [28,8,9,5,29]. In order to clarify differences between ‘primary hikikomori’ (social withdrawal not associated with any underlying psychiatric disorder) and ‘secondary hikikomori’ (social withdrawal caused by an established psychiatric disorder), further epidemiological and psychopathological studies are needed. […] Even if all hikikomori cases prove to be within some kind of psychiatric disorders, it is valuable to continue to focus on the hikikomori phenomenon because of its associated morbidity, similar to how suicidality is examined in various fields of psychiatry [30]. Reducing the burden of hikikomori symptoms, regardless of what psychiatric disorders patients may have, may provide a worthwhile improvement in their quality of life, and this suggests another direction of future hikikomori research.”

“Our case vignette survey indicates that the hikikomori syndrome, previously thought to exist only in Japan, is perceived by psychiatrists to exist in many other countries. It is particularly perceived as occurring in urban areas and might be associated with rapid global sociocultural changes. There is no consensus among psychiatrists within or across countries about the causes, diagnosis and therapeutic interventions for hikikomori yet.”

iii. Hikikomori: clinical and psychopathological issues (review). A poor paper, but it did have a little bit of data of interest:

“The prevalence of hikikomori is difficult to assess […]. In Japan, more than one million cases have been estimated by experts, but there is no population-based study to confirm these data (9). […] In 2008, Kiyota et al. summarized 3 population-based studies involving 12 cities and 3951 subjects, highlighting that a percentage comprised between 0.9% and 3.8% of the sample had an hikikomori history in anamnesis (11). The typical hikikomori patient is male (4:1 male-to-female ratio) […] females constitute a minor fraction of the reported cases, and usually their period of social isolation is limited.”

iv. Interpreting results of ethanol analysis in postmortem specimens: A review of the literature.

A few observations from the paper:

“A person’s blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) and state of inebriation at the time of death is not always easy to establish owing to various postmortem artifacts. The possibility of alcohol being produced in the body after death, e.g. via microbial contamination and fermentation is a recurring issue in routine casework. If ethanol remains unabsorbed in the stomach at the time of death, this raises the possibility of continued local diffusion into surrounding tissues and central blood after death. Skull trauma often renders a person unconscious for several hours before death, during which time the BAC continues to decrease owing to metabolism in the liver. Under these circumstances blood from an intracerebral or subdural clot is a useful specimen for determination of ethanol. Bodies recovered from water are particular problematic to deal with owing to possible dilution of body fluids, decomposition, and enhanced risk of microbial synthesis of ethanol. […] Alcoholics often die at home with zero or low BAC and nothing more remarkable at autopsy than a fatty liver. Increasing evidence suggests that such deaths might be caused by a pronounced ketoacidosis.”

“The concentrations of ethanol measured in blood drawn from different sampling sites tend to vary much more than expected from inherent variations in the analytical methods used [49]. Studies have shown that concentrations of ethanol and other drugs determined in heart blood are generally higher than in blood from a peripheral vein although in any individual case there are likely to be considerable variations [50–53].”

“The BAC necessary to cause death is often an open question and much depends on the person’s age, drinking experience and degree of tolerance development [78]. The speed of drinking plays a role in alcohol toxicity as does the kind of beverage consumed […] Drunkenness and hypothermia represent a dangerous combination and deaths tend to occur at a lower BAC when people are exposed to cold, such as, when an alcoholic sleeps outdoors in the winter months [78]. Drinking large amounts of alcohol to produce stupor and unconsciousness combined with positional asphyxia or inhalation of vomit are common causes of death in intoxicated individuals who die of suffocation [81–83]. The toxicity of ethanol is often considerably enhanced by the concomitant use of other drugs with their site of action in the brain, especially opiates, propoxyphene, antidepressants and some sedative hypnotics [84]. […] It seems reasonable to assume that the BAC at autopsy will almost always be lower than the maximum BAC reached during a drinking binge, owing to metabolism of ethanol taking place up until the moment of death [85–87]. During the time after discontinuation of drinking until death, the BAC might decrease appreciably depending on the speed of alcohol elimination from blood, which in heavy drinkers could exceed 20 or 30 mg/100 mL per h (0.02 or 0.03 g% per h) [88].”

“When the supply of oxygen to the body ends, the integrity of cell membranes and tissue compartments gradually disintegrate through the action of various digestive enzymes. This reflects the process of autolysis (self digestion) resulting in a softening and liquefaction of the tissue (freezing the body prevents autolysis). During this process, bacteria from the bowel invade the surrounding tissue and vascular system and the rate of infiltration depends on many factors including the ambient temperature, position of the body and whether death was caused by bacterial infection. Glucose concentrations increase in blood after death and this sugar is probably the simplest substrate for microbial synthesis of ethanol [20,68]. […] Extensive trauma to a body […] increases the potential for spread of bacteria and heightens the risk of ethanol production after death [217]. Blood-ethanol concentrations as high as 190 mg/100 mL have been reported in postmortem blood after particularly traumatic events such as explosions and when no evidence existed to support ingestion of ethanol before the disaster [218].”

v. Interventions based on the Theory of Mind cognitive model for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (Cochrane review).

“The ‘Theory of Mind’ (ToM) model suggests that people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have a profound difficulty understanding the minds of other people – their emotions, feelings, beliefs, and thoughts. As an explanation for some of the characteristic social and communication behaviours of people with ASD, this model has had a significant influence on research and practice. It implies that successful interventions to teach ToM could, in turn, have far-reaching effects on behaviours and outcome.”

“Twenty-two randomised trials were included in the review (N = 695). Studies were highly variable in their country of origin, sample size, participant age, intervention delivery type, and outcome measures. Risk of bias was variable across categories. There were very few studies for which there was adequate blinding of participants and personnel, and some were also judged at high risk of bias in blinding of outcome assessors. There was also evidence of some bias in sequence generation and allocation concealment.”

“Studies were grouped into four main categories according to intervention target/primary outcome measure. These were: emotion recognition studies, joint attention and social communication studies, imitation studies, and studies teaching ToM itself. […] There was very low quality evidence of a positive effect on measures of communication based on individual results from three studies. There was low quality evidence from 11 studies reporting mixed results of interventions on measures of social interaction, very low quality evidence from four studies reporting mixed results on measures of general communication, and very low quality evidence from four studies reporting mixed results on measures of ToM ability. […] While there is some evidence that ToM, or a precursor skill, can be taught to people with ASD, there is little evidence of maintenance of that skill, generalisation to other settings, or developmental effects on related skills. Furthermore, inconsistency in findings and measurement means that evidence has been graded of ‘very low’ or ‘low’ quality and we cannot be confident that suggestions of positive effects will be sustained as high-quality evidence accumulates. Further longitudinal designs and larger samples are needed to help elucidate both the efficacy of ToM-linked interventions and the explanatory value of the ToM model itself.”

vi. Risk of Psychiatric and Neurodevelopmental Disorders Among Siblings of Probands With Autism Spectrum Disorders.

“The Finnish Prenatal Study of Autism and Autism Spectrum Disorders used a population-based cohort that included children born from January 1, 1987, to December 31, 2005, who received a diagnosis of ASD by December 31, 2007. Each case was individually matched to 4 control participants by sex and date and place of birth. […] Among the 3578 cases with ASD (2841 boys [79.4%]) and 11 775 controls (9345 boys [79.4%]), 1319 cases (36.9%) and 2052 controls (17.4%) had at least 1 sibling diagnosed with any psychiatric or neurodevelopmental disorder (adjusted RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 2.3-2.6).”

Conclusions and Relevance Psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders cluster among siblings of probands with ASD. For etiologic research, these findings provide further evidence that several psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders have common risk factors.”

vii. Treatment for epilepsy in pregnancy: neurodevelopmental outcomes in the child (Cochrane review).

“Accumulating evidence suggests an association between prenatal exposure to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and increased risk of both physical anomalies and neurodevelopmental impairment. Neurodevelopmental impairment is characterised by either a specific deficit or a constellation of deficits across cognitive, motor and social skills and can be transient or continuous into adulthood. It is of paramount importance that these potential risks are identified, minimised and communicated clearly to women with epilepsy.”

“Twenty-two prospective cohort studies were included and six registry based studies. Study quality varied. […] the IQ of children exposed to VPA [sodium valproate] (n = 112) was significantly lower than for those exposed to CBZ [carbamazepine] (n = 191) (MD [mean difference] 8.69, 95% CI 5.51 to 11.87, P < 0.00001). […] IQ was significantly lower for children exposed to VPA (n = 74) versus LTG [lamotrigine] (n = 84) (MD -10.80, 95% CI -14.42 to -7.17, P < 0.00001). DQ [developmental quotient] was higher in children exposed to PHT (n = 80) versus VPA (n = 108) (MD 7.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 13.65, P = 0.04). Similarly IQ was higher in children exposed to PHT (n = 45) versus VPA (n = 61) (MD 9.25, 95% CI 4.78 to 13.72, P < 0.0001). A dose effect for VPA was reported in six studies, with higher doses (800 to 1000 mg daily or above) associated with a poorer cognitive outcome in the child. We identified no convincing evidence of a dose effect for CBZ, PHT or LTG. Studies not included in the meta-analysis were reported narratively, the majority of which supported the findings of the meta-analyses.”

“The most important finding is the reduction in IQ in the VPA exposed group, which are sufficient to affect education and occupational outcomes in later life. However, for some women VPA is the most effective drug at controlling seizures. Informed treatment decisions require detailed counselling about these risks at treatment initiation and at pre-conceptual counselling. We have insufficient data about newer AEDs, some of which are commonly prescribed, and further research is required. Most women with epilepsy should continue their medication during pregnancy as uncontrolled seizures also carries a maternal risk.”

Do take note of the effect sizes reported here. To take an example, the difference between being treated with valproate and lamotrigine might equal 10 IQ points in the child – these are huge effects.

June 11, 2017 Posted by | Medicine, Neurology, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Studies | Leave a comment

A few papers

i. Quality of life of adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: comparison to adolescents with diabetes.

“The goals of our study were to clarify the consequences of autistic disorder without mental retardation on […] adolescents’ daily lives, and to consider them in comparison with the impact of a chronic somatic disease (diabetes) […] Scores for adolescents with ASD were significantly lower than those of the control and the diabetic adolescents, especially for friendships, leisure time, and affective and sexual relationships. On the other hand, better scores were obtained for the relationships with parents and teachers and for self-image. […] For subjects with autistic spectrum disorders and without mental retardation, impairment of quality of life is significant in adolescence and young adulthood. Such adolescents are dissatisfied with their relationships, although they often have real motivation to succeed with them.”

As someone who has both conditions, that paper was quite interesting. A follow-up question of some personal interest to me would of course be this: How do the scores/outcomes of these two groups compare to the scores of the people who have both conditions simultaneously? This question is likely almost impossible to answer in any confident manner, certainly if the conditions are not strongly dependent (unlikely), considering the power issues; global prevalence of autism is around 0.6% (link), and although type 1 prevalence is highly variable across countries, the variation just means that in some countries almost nobody gets it whereas in other countries it’s just rare; prevalence varies from 0.5 per 100.000 to 60 per 100.000 children aged 0-15 years. Assuming independence, if you look at combinations of the sort of conditions which affect one in a hundred people with those affecting one in a thousand, you’ll need on average in the order of 100.000 people to pick up just one individual with both of the conditions of interest. It’s bothersome to even try to find people like that, and good luck doing any sort of sensible statistics on that kind of sample. Of course type 1 diabetes prevalence increases with age in a way that autism does not because people continue to be diagnosed with it into late adulthood, whereas most autistics are diagnosed as children, so this makes the rarity of the condition less of a problem in adult samples, but if you’re looking at outcomes it’s arguable whether it makes sense to not differentiate between someone diagnosed with type 1 diabetes as a 35 year old and someone diagnosed as a 5 year old (are these really comparable diseases, and which outcomes are you interested in?). At least that is the case for developed societies where people with type 1 diabetes have high life expectancies; in less developed societies there may be stronger linkage between incidence and prevalence because of high mortality in the patient group (because people who get type 1 diabetes in such countries may not live very long because of inadequate medical care, which means there’s a smaller disconnect between how many new people get the disease during each time period and how many people in total have the disease than is the case for places where the mortality rates are lower). You always need to be careful about distinguishing between incidence and prevalence when dealing with conditions like T1DM with potential high mortality rates in settings where people have limited access to medical care because differential cross-country mortality patterns may be important.

ii. Exercise for depression (Cochrane review).

Background

Depression is a common and important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Depression is commonly treated with antidepressants and/or psychological therapy, but some people may prefer alternative approaches such as exercise. There are a number of theoretical reasons why exercise may improve depression. This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2009.

Objectives

To determine the effectiveness of exercise in the treatment of depression in adults compared with no treatment or a comparator intervention. […]

Selection criteria 

Randomised controlled trials in which exercise (defined according to American College of Sports Medicine criteria) was compared to standard treatment, no treatment or a placebo treatment, pharmacological treatment, psychological treatment or other active treatment in adults (aged 18 and over) with depression, as defined by trial authors. We included cluster trials and those that randomised individuals. We excluded trials of postnatal depression.

Thirty-nine trials (2326 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria, of which 37 provided data for meta-analyses. There were multiple sources of bias in many of the trials; randomisation was adequately concealed in 14 studies, 15 used intention-to-treat analyses and 12 used blinded outcome assessors.For the 35 trials (1356 participants) comparing exercise with no treatment or a control intervention, the pooled SMD for the primary outcome of depression at the end of treatment was -0.62 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.81 to -0.42), indicating a moderate clinical effect. There was moderate heterogeneity (I² = 63%).

When we included only the six trials (464 participants) with adequate allocation concealment, intention-to-treat analysis and blinded outcome assessment, the pooled SMD for this outcome was not statistically significant (-0.18, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.11). Pooled data from the eight trials (377 participants) providing long-term follow-up data on mood found a small effect in favour of exercise (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03). […]

Authors’ conclusions

Exercise is moderately more effective than a control intervention for reducing symptoms of depression, but analysis of methodologically robust trials only shows a smaller effect in favour of exercise. When compared to psychological or pharmacological therapies, exercise appears to be no more effective, though this conclusion is based on a few small trials.”

iii. Risk factors for suicide in individuals with depression: A systematic review.

“The search strategy identified 3374 papers for potential inclusion. Of these, 155 were retrieved for a detailed evaluation. Thirty-two articles fulfilled the detailed eligibility criteria. […] Nineteen studies (28 publications) were included. Factors significantly associated with suicide were: male gender (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.08–2.86), family history of psychiatric disorder (OR = 1.41, 95% CI= 1.00–1.97), previous attempted suicide (OR = 4.84, 95% CI = 3.26–7.20), more severe depression (OR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.05–4.60), hopelessness (OR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.49–3.23) and comorbid disorders, including anxiety (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.03–2.45) and misuse of alcohol and drugs (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.77–2.66).
Limitations: There were fewer studies than suspected. Interdependence between risk factors could not be examined.”

iv. Cognitive behaviour therapy for social anxiety in autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.

“Individuals who have autism spectrum disorders (ASD) commonly experience anxiety about social interaction and social situations. Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is a recommended treatment for social anxiety (SA) in the non-ASD population. Therapy typically comprises cognitive interventions, imagery-based work and for some individuals, behavioural interventions. Whether these are useful for the ASD population is unclear. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review to summarise research about CBT for SA in ASD.”

I mostly include this review here to highlight how reviews aren’t everything – I like them, but you can’t do reviews when a field hasn’t been studied. This is definitely the case here. The review was sort of funny, but also depressing. So much work for so little insight. Here’s the gist of it:

“Using a priori criteria, we searched for English-language peer-reviewed empirical studies in five databases. The search yielded 1364 results. Titles, abstracts and relevant publications were independently screened by two reviewers. Findings: Four single case studies met the review inclusion criteria; data were synthesised narratively. Participants (three adults and one child) were diagnosed with ASD and social anxiety disorder.”

You search the scientific literature systematically, you find more than a thousand results, and you carefully evaluate which ones of them should be included in this kind of study …and what you end up with is 4 individual case studies…

(I won’t go into the results of the study as they’re pretty much worthless.)

v. Immigrant Labor Market Integration across Admission Classes.

“We examine patterns of labor market integration across immigrant groups. The study draws on Norwegian longitudinal administrative data covering labor earnings and social insurance claims over a 25‐year period and presents a comprehensive picture of immigrant‐native employment and social insurance differentials by admission class and by years since entry.”

Some quotes from the paper:

“A recent study using 2011 administrative data from Sweden finds an average employment gap to natives of 30 percentage points for humanitarian migrants (refugees) and 26 percentage point for family immigrants (Luik et al., 2016).”

“A considerable fraction of the immigrants leaves the country after just a few years. […] this is particularly the case for immigrants from the old EU and for students and work-related immigrants from developing countries. For these groups, fewer than 50 percent remain in the country 5 years after entry. For refugees and family migrants, the picture is very different, and around 80 percent appear to have settled permanently in the country. Immigrants from the new EU have a settlement pattern somewhere in between, with approximately 70 percent settled on a permanent basis. An implication of such differential outmigration patterns is that the long-term labor market performance of refugees and family immigrants is of particular economic and fiscal importance. […] the varying rates of immigrant inflows and outflows by admission class, along with other demographic trends, have changed the composition of the adult (25‐66) population between 1990 and 2015. In this population segment, the overall immigrant share increased from 4.9 percent in 1990 to 18.7 percent in 2015 — an increase by a factor of 3.8 over 25 years. […] Following the 2004 EU enlargement, the fraction of immigrants in Norway has increased by a steady rate of approximately one percentage point per year.”

“The trends in population and employment shares varies considerably across admission classes, with employment shares of refugees and family immigrants lagging their growth in population shares. […] In 2014, refugees and family immigrants accounted for 12.8 percent of social insurance claims, compared to 5.7 percent of employment (and 7.7 percent of the adult population). In contrast, the two EU groups made up 9.3 percent of employment (and 8.8 percent of the adult population) but only 3.6 percent of social insurance claimants. Although these patterns do illuminate the immediate (short‐term) fiscal impacts of immigration at each particular point in time, they are heavily influenced by each year’s immigrant composition – in terms of age, years since migration, and admission classes – and therefore provide little information about long‐term consequences and impacts of fiscal sustainability. To assess the latter, we need to focus on longer‐term integration in the Norwegian labor market.”

Which they then proceed to do in the paper. From the results of those analyses:

“For immigrant men, the sample average share in employment (i.e., whose main source of income is work) ranges from 58 percent for refugees to 89 percent for EU immigrants, with family migrants somewhere between (around 80 percent). The average shares with social insurance as the main source of income ranges from only four percent for EU immigrants to as much as 38 percent for refugees. The corresponding shares for native men are 87 percent in employment and 12 percent with social insurance as their main income source. For women, the average shares in employment vary from 46 percent for refugees to 85 percent for new EU immigrants, whereas the average shares in social insurance vary from five percent for new EU immigrants to 42 percent for refugees. The corresponding rates for native women are 80 percent in employment and 17 percent with social insurance as their main source of income.”

“The profiles estimated for refugees are particularly striking. For men, we find that the native‐immigrant employment gap reaches its minimum value at 20 percentage points after five to six years of residence. The gap then starts to increase quite sharply again, and reaches 30 percentage points after 15 years. This development is mirrored by a corresponding increase in social insurance dependency. For female refugees, the employment differential reaches its minimum of 30 percentage points after 5‐9 years of residence. The subsequent decline is less dramatic than what we observe for men, but the differential stands at 35 percentage points 15 years after admission. […] The employment difference between refugees from Bosnia and Somalia is fully 22.2 percentage points for men and 37.7 points for women. […] For immigrants from the old EU, the employment differential is slightly in favor of immigrants regardless of years since migration, and the social insurance differentials remain consistently negative. In other words, employment of old EU immigrants is almost indistinguishable from that of natives, and they are less likely to claim social insurance benefits.”

vi. Glucose Peaks and the Risk of Dementia and 20-Year Cognitive Decline.

“Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), a measure of average blood glucose level, is associated with the risk of dementia and cognitive impairment. However, the role of glycemic variability or glucose excursions in this association is unclear. We examined the association of glucose peaks in midlife, as determined by the measurement of 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) level, with the risk of dementia and 20-year cognitive decline.”

“Nearly 13,000 participants from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study were examined. […] Over a median time of 21 years, dementia developed in 1,105 participants. Among persons with diabetes, each 5 μg/mL decrease in 1,5-AG increased the estimated risk of dementia by 16% (hazard ratio 1.16, P = 0.032). For cognitive decline among participants with diabetes and HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol), those with glucose peaks had a 0.19 greater z score decline over 20 years (P = 0.162) compared with those without peaks. Among participants with diabetes and HbA1c ≥7% (53 mmol/mol), those with glucose peaks had a 0.38 greater z score decline compared with persons without glucose peaks (P < 0.001). We found no significant associations in persons without diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS Among participants with diabetes, glucose peaks are a risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia. Targeting glucose peaks, in addition to average glycemia, may be an important avenue for prevention.”

vii. Gaze direction detection in autism spectrum disorder.

“Detecting where our partners direct their gaze is an important aspect of social interaction. An atypical gaze processing has been reported in autism. However, it remains controversial whether children and adults with autism spectrum disorder interpret indirect gaze direction with typical accuracy. This study investigated whether the detection of gaze direction toward an object is less accurate in autism spectrum disorder. Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (n = 33) and intelligence quotients–matched and age-matched controls (n = 38) were asked to watch a series of synthetic faces looking at objects, and decide which of two objects was looked at. The angle formed by the two possible targets and the face varied following an adaptive procedure, in order to determine individual thresholds. We found that gaze direction detection was less accurate in autism spectrum disorder than in control participants. Our results suggest that the precision of gaze following may be one of the altered processes underlying social interaction difficulties in autism spectrum disorder.”

“Where people look at informs us about what they know, want, or attend to. Atypical or altered detection of gaze direction might thus lead to impoverished acquisition of social information and social interaction. Alternatively, it has been suggested that abnormal monitoring of inner states […], or the lack of social motivation […], would explain the reduced tendency to follow conspecific gaze in individuals with ASD. Either way, a lower tendency to look at the eyes and to follow the gaze would provide fewer opportunities to practice GDD [gaze direction detection – US] ability. Thus, impaired GDD might either play a causal role in atypical social interaction, or conversely be a consequence of it. Exploring GDD earlier in development might help disentangle this issue.”

June 1, 2017 Posted by | Diabetes, Economics, Epidemiology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Studies | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Cost-Effectiveness of Prevention and Treatment of the Diabetic Foot.

“A risk-based Markov model was developed to simulate the onset and progression of diabetic foot disease in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes managed with care according to guidelines for their lifetime. Mean survival time, quality of life, foot complications, and costs were the outcome measures assessed. Current care was the reference comparison. Data from Dutch studies on the epidemiology of diabetic foot disease, health care use, and costs, complemented with information from international studies, were used to feed the model.

RESULTS—Compared with current care, guideline-based care resulted in improved life expectancy, gain of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and reduced incidence of foot complications. The lifetime costs of management of the diabetic foot following guideline-based care resulted in a cost per QALY gained of <$25,000, even for levels of preventive foot care as low as 10%. The cost-effectiveness varied sharply, depending on the level of foot ulcer reduction attained.

CONCLUSIONS—Management of the diabetic foot according to guideline-based care improves survival, reduces diabetic foot complications, and is cost-effective and even cost saving compared with standard care.”

I won’t go too deeply into the model setup and the results but some of the data they used to feed the model were actually somewhat interesting in their own right, and I have added some of these data below, along with some of the model results.

“It is estimated that 80% of LEAs [lower extremity amputations] are preceded by foot ulcers. Accordingly, it has been demonstrated that preventing the development of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes reduces the frequency of LEAs by 49–85% (6).”

“An annual ulcer incidence rate of 2.1% and an amputation incidence rate of 0.6% were among the reference country-specific parameters derived from this study and adopted in the model.”

“The health outcomes results of the cohort following standard care were comparable to figures reported for diabetic patients in the Netherlands. […] In the 10,000 patients followed until death, a total of 1,780 ulcer episodes occurred, corresponding to a cumulative ulcer incidence of 17.8% and an annual ulcer incidence of 2.2% (mean annual ulcer incidence for the Netherlands is 2.1%) (17). The number of amputations observed was 362 (250 major and 112 minor), corresponding to a cumulative incidence of 3.6% and an annual incidence of 0.4% (mean annual amputation incidence reported for the Netherlands is 0.6%) (17).”

“Cornerstones of guidelines-based care are intensive glycemic control (IGC) and optimal foot care (OFC). Although health benefits and economic efficiency of intensive blood glucose control (8) and foot care programs (914) have been individually reported, the health and economic outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of both interventions have not been determined. […] OFC according to guidelines includes professional protective foot care, education of patients and staff, regular inspection of the feet, identification of the high-risk patient, treatment of nonulcerative lesions, and a multidisciplinary approach to established foot ulcers. […] All cohorts of patients simulated for the different scenarios of guidelines care resulted in improved life expectancy, QALYs gained, and reduced incidence of foot ulcers and LEA compared with standard care. The largest effects on these outcomes were obtained when patients received IGC + OFC. When comparing the independent health effects of the two guidelines strategies, OFC resulted in a greater reduction in ulcer and amputation rates than IGC. Moreover, patients who received IGC + OFC showed approximately the same LEA incidence as patients who received OFC alone. The LEA decrease obtained was proportional to the level of foot ulcer reduction attained.”

“The mean total lifetime costs of a patient under either of the three guidelines care scenarios ranged from $4,088 to $4,386. For patients receiving IGC + OFC, these costs resulted in <$25,000 per QALY gained (relative to standard care). For patients receiving IGC alone, the ICER [here’s a relevant link – US] obtained was $32,057 per QALY gained, and for those receiving OFC alone, this ICER ranged from $12,169 to $220,100 per QALY gained, depending on the level of ulcer reduction attained. […] Increasing the effectiveness of preventive foot care in patients under OFC and IGC + OFC resulted in more QALYs gained, lower costs, and a more favorable ICER. The results of the simulations for the combined scenario (IGC + OFC) were rather insensitive to changes in utility weights and costing parameters. Similar results were obtained for parameter variations in the other two scenarios (IGC and OFC separately).”

“The results of this study suggest that IGC + OFC reduces foot ulcers and amputations and leads to an improvement in life expectancy. Greater health benefits are obtained with higher levels of foot ulcer prevention. Although care according to guidelines increases health costs, the cost per QALY gained is <$25,000, even for levels of preventive foot care as low as 10%. ICERs of this order are cost-effective according to the stratification of interventions for diabetes recently proposed (32). […] IGC falls into the category of a possibly cost-effective intervention in the management of the diabetic foot. Although it does not produce significant reduction in foot ulcers and LEA, its effectiveness resides in the slowing of neuropathy progression rates.

Extrapolating our results to a practical situation, if IGC + OFC was to be given to all diabetic patients in the Netherlands, with the aim of reducing LEA by 50% (St. Vincent’s declaration), the cost per QALY gained would be $12,165 and the cost for managing diabetic ulcers and amputations would decrease by 53 and 58%, respectively. From a policy perspective, this is clearly cost-effective and cost saving compared with current care.”

ii. Early Glycemic Control, Age at Onset, and Development of Microvascular Complications in Childhood-Onset Type 1 Diabetes.

“The aim of this work was to study the impact of glycemic control (HbA1c) early in disease and age at onset on the occurrence of incipient diabetic nephropathy (MA) and background retinopathy (RP) in childhood-onset type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—All children, diagnosed at 0–14 years in a geographically defined area in northern Sweden between 1981 and 1992, were identified using the Swedish Childhood Diabetes Registry. From 1981, a nationwide childhood diabetes care program was implemented recommending intensified insulin treatment. HbA1c and urinary albumin excretion were analyzed, and fundus photography was performed regularly. Retrospective data on all 94 patients were retrieved from medical records and laboratory reports.

RESULTS—During the follow-up period, with a mean duration of 12 ± 4 years (range 5–19), 17 patients (18%) developed MA, 45 patients (48%) developed RP, and 52% had either or both complications. A Cox proportional hazard regression, modeling duration to occurrence of MA or RP, showed that glycemic control (reflected by mean HbA1c) during the follow-up was significantly associated with both MA and RP when adjusted for sex, birth weight, age at onset, and tobacco use as potential confounders. Mean HbA1c during the first 5 years of diabetes was a near-significant determinant for development of MA (hazard ratio 1.41, P = 0.083) and a significant determinant of RP (1.32, P = 0.036). The age at onset of diabetes significantly influenced the risk of developing RP (1.11, P = 0.021). Thus, in a Kaplan-Meier analysis, onset of diabetes before the age of 5 years, compared with the age-groups 5–11 and >11 years, showed a longer time to occurrence of RP (P = 0.015), but no clear tendency was seen for MA, perhaps due to lower statistical power.

CONCLUSIONS—Despite modern insulin treatment, >50% of patients with childhood-onset type 1 diabetes developed detectable diabetes complications after ∼12 years of diabetes. Inadequate glycemic control, also during the first 5 years of diabetes, seems to accelerate time to occurrence, whereas a young age at onset of diabetes seems to prolong the time to development of microvascular complications. […] The present study and other studies (15,54) indicate that children with an onset of diabetes before the age of 5 years may have a prolonged time to development of microvascular complications. Thus, the youngest age-groups, who are most sensitive to hypoglycemia with regard to risk of persistent brain damage, may have a relative protection during childhood or a longer time to development of complications.”

It’s important to note that although some people reading the study may think this is all ancient history (people diagnosed in the 80es?), to a lot of people it really isn’t. The study is of great personal interest to me, as I was diagnosed in ’87; if it had been a Danish study rather than a Swedish one I might well have been included in the analysis.

Another note to add in the context of the above coverage is that unlike what the authors of the paper seem to think/imply, hypoglycemia may not be the only relevant variable of interest in the context of the effect of childhood diabetes on brain development, where early diagnosis has been observed to tend to lead to less favourable outcomes – other variables which may be important include DKA episodes and perhaps also chronic hyperglycemia during early childhood. See this post for more stuff on these topics.

Some more stuff from the paper:

“The annual incidence of type 1 diabetes in northern Sweden in children 0–14 years of age is now ∼31/100,000. During the time period 1981–1992, there has been an increase in the annual incidence from 19 to 31/100,000 in northern Sweden. This is similar to the rest of Sweden […]. Seventeen (18%) of the 94 patients fulfilled the criteria for MA during the follow-up period. None of the patients developed overt nephropathy, elevated serum creatinine, or had signs of any other kidney disorder, e.g., hematuria, during the follow-up period. […] The mean time to diagnosis of MA was 9 ± 3 years (range 4–15) from diabetes onset. Forty-five (48%) of the 94 patients fulfilled the criteria for RP during the follow-up period. None of the patients developed proliferative retinopathy or were treated with photocoagulation. The mean time to diagnosis of RP was 11 ± 4 years (range 4–19) from onset of diabetes. Of the 45 patients with RP, 13 (29%) had concomitant MA, and thus 13 (76.5%) of the 17 patients with MA had concomitant RP. […] Altogether, among the 94 patients, 32 (34%) had isolated RP, 4 (4%) had isolated MA, and 13 (14%) had combined RP and MA. Thus, 49 (52%) patients had either one or both complications and, hence, 45 (48%) had neither of these complications.”

“When modeling MA as a function of glycemic level up to the onset of MA or during the entire follow-up period, adjusting for sex, birth weight, age at onset of diabetes, and tobacco use, only glycemic control had a significant effect. An increase in hazard ratio (HR) of 83% per one percentage unit increase in mean HbA1c was seen. […] The increase in HR of developing RP for each percentage unit rise in HbA1c during the entire follow-up period was 43% and in the early period 32%. […] Age at onset of diabetes was a weak but significant independent determinant for the development of RP in all regression models (P = 0.015, P = 0.018, and P = 0.010, respectively). […] Despite that this study was relatively small and had a retrospective design, we were able to show that the glycemic level already during the first 5 years may be an important predictor of later development of both MA and RP. This is in accordance with previous prospective follow-up studies (16,30).”

“Previously, male sex, smoking, and low birth weight have been shown to be risk factors for the development of nephropathy and retinopathy (6,4549). However, in this rather small retrospective study with a limited follow-up time, we could not confirm these associations”. This may just be because of lack of power, it’s a relatively small study. Again, this is/was of personal interest to me; two of those three risk factors apply to me, and neither of those risk factors are modifiable.

iii. Eighteen Years of Fair Glycemic Control Preserves Cardiac Autonomic Function in Type 1 Diabetes.

“Reduced cardiovascular autonomic function is associated with increased mortality in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (14). Poor glycemic control plays an important role in the development and progression of diabetic cardiac autonomic dysfunction (57). […] Diabetic cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) can be defined as impaired function of the peripheral autonomic nervous system. Exercise intolerance, resting tachycardia, and silent myocardial ischemia may be early signs of cardiac autonomic dysfunction (9).The most frequent finding in subclinical and symptomatic CAN is reduced heart rate variability (HRV) (10). […] No other studies have followed type 1 diabetic patients on intensive insulin treatment during ≥14-year periods and documented cardiac autonomic dysfunction. We evaluated the association between 18 years’ mean HbA1c and cardiac autonomic function in a group of type 1 diabetic patients with 30 years of disease duration.”

“A total of 39 patients with type 1 diabetes were followed during 18 years, and HbA1c was measured yearly. At 18 years follow-up heart rate variability (HRV) measurements were used to assess cardiac autonomic function. Standard cardiac autonomic tests during normal breathing, deep breathing, the Valsalva maneuver, and the tilt test were performed. Maximal heart rate increase during exercise electrocardiogram and minimal heart rate during sleep were also used to describe cardiac autonomic function.

RESULTS—We present the results for patients with mean HbA1c <8.4% (two lowest HbA1c tertiles) compared with those with HbA1c ≥8.4% (highest HbA1c tertile). All of the cardiac autonomic tests were significantly different in the high- and the low-HbA1c groups, and the most favorable scores for all tests were seen in the low-HbA1c group. In the low-HbA1c group, the HRV was 40% during deep breathing, and in the high-HbA1c group, the HRV was 19.9% (P = 0.005). Minimal heart rate at night was significantly lower in the low-HbA1c groups than in the high-HbA1c group (P = 0.039). With maximal exercise, the increase in heart rate was significantly higher in the low-HbA1c group compared with the high-HbA1c group (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS—Mean HbA1c during 18 years was associated with cardiac autonomic function. Cardiac autonomic function was preserved with HbA1c <8.4%, whereas cardiac autonomic dysfunction was impaired in the group with HbA1c ≥8.4%. […] The study underlines the importance of good glycemic control and demonstrates that good long-term glycemic control is associated with preserved cardiac autonomic function, whereas a lack of good glycemic control is associated with cardiac autonomic dysfunction.”

These results are from Norway (Oslo), and again they seem relevant to me personally (‘from a statistical point of view’) – I’ve had diabetes for about as long as the people they included in the study.

iv. The Mental Health Comorbidities of Diabetes.

“Individuals living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes are at increased risk for depression, anxiety, and eating disorder diagnoses. Mental health comorbidities of diabetes compromise adherence to treatment and thus increase the risk for serious short- and long-term complications […] Young adults with type 1 diabetes are especially at risk for poor physical and mental health outcomes and premature mortality. […] we summarize the prevalence and consequences of mental health problems for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and suggest strategies for identifying and treating patients with diabetes and mental health comorbidities.”

“Major advances in the past 2 decades have improved understanding of the biological basis for the relationship between depression and diabetes.2 A bidirectional relationship might exist between type 2 diabetes and depression: just as type 2 diabetes increases the risk for onset of major depression, a major depressive disorder signals increased risk for on set of type 2 diabetes.2 Moreover, diabetes distress is now recognized as an entity separate from major depressive disorder.2 Diabetes distress occurs because virtually all of diabetes care involves self-management behavior—requiring balance of a complex set of behavioral tasks by the person and family, 24 hours a day, without “vacation” days. […] Living with diabetes is associated with a broad range of diabetes-related distresses, such as feeling over-whelmed with the diabetes regimen; being concerned about the future and the possibility of serious complications; and feeling guilty when management is going poorly. This disease burden and emotional distress in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, even at levels of severity below the threshold for a psychiatric diagnosis of depression or anxiety, are associated with poor adherence to treatment, poor glycemic control, higher rates of diabetes complications, and impaired quality of life. […] Depression in the context of diabetes is […] associated with poor self-care with respect to diabetes treatment […] Depression among individuals with diabetes is also associated with increased health care use and expenditures, irrespective of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and health insurance status.3

“Women with type 1 diabetes have a 2-fold increased risk for developing an eating disorder and a 1.9-fold increased risk for developing subthreshold eating disorders than women without diabetes.6 Less is known about eating disorders in boys and men with diabetes. Disturbed eating behaviors in women with type 1 diabetes include binge eating and caloric purging through insulin restriction, with rates of these disturbed eating behaviors reported to occur in 31% to 40% of women with type 1 diabetes aged between 15 and 30 years.6 […] disordered eating behaviors persist and worsen over time. Women with type 1 diabetes and eating disorders have poorer glycemic control, with higher rates of hospitalizations and retinopathy, neuropathy, and premature death compared with similarly aged women with type 1 diabetes without eating disorders.6 […] few diabetes clinics provide mental health screening or integrate mental/behavioral health services in diabetes clinical care.4 It is neither practical nor affordable to use standardized psychiatric diagnostic interviews to diagnose mental health comorbidities in individuals with diabetes. Brief paper-and-pencil self-report measures such as the Beck Depression Inventory […] that screen for depressive symptoms are practical in diabetes clinical settings, but their use remains rare.”

The paper does not mention this, but it is important to note that there are multiple plausible biological pathways which might help to explain bidirectional linkage between depression and type 2 diabetes. Physiological ‘stress’ (think: inflammation) is likely to be an important factor, and so are the typical physiological responses to some of the pharmacological treatments used to treat depression (…as well as other mental health conditions); multiple drugs used in psychiatry, including tricyclic antidepressants, cause weight gain and have proven diabetogenic effects – I’ve covered these topics before here on the blog. I’ve incidentally also covered other topics touched briefly upon in the paper – here’s for example a more comprehensive post about screening for depression in the diabetes context, and here’s a post with some information about how one might go about screening for eating disorders; skin signs are important. I was a bit annoyed that the author of the above paper did not mention this, as observing whether or not Russell’s sign – which is a very reliable indicator of eating disorder – is present or not is easier/cheaper/faster than performing any kind of even semi-valid depression screen.

v. Diabetes, Depression, and Quality of Life. This last one covers topics related to the topics covered in the paper above.

“The study consisted of a representative population sample of individuals aged ≥15 years living in South Australia comprising 3,010 personal interviews conducted by trained health interviewers. The prevalence of depression in those suffering doctor-diagnosed diabetes and comparative effects of diabetic status and depression on quality-of-life dimensions were measured.

RESULTS—The prevalence of depression in the diabetic population was 24% compared with 17% in the nondiabetic population. Those with diabetes and depression experienced an impact with a large effect size on every dimension of the Short Form Health-Related Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (SF-36) as compared with those who suffered diabetes and who were not depressed. A supplementary analysis comparing both depressed diabetic and depressed nondiabetic groups showed there were statistically significant differences in the quality-of-life effects between the two depressed populations in the physical and mental component summaries of the SF-36.

CONCLUSIONS—Depression for those with diabetes is an important comorbidity that requires careful management because of its severe impact on quality of life.”

I felt slightly curious about the setup after having read this, because representative population samples of individuals should not in my opinion yield depression rates of either 17% nor 24%. Rates that high suggest to me that the depression criteria used in the paper are a bit ‘laxer’/more inclusive than what you see in some other contexts when reading this sort of literature – to give an example of what I mean, the depression screening post I link to above noted that clinical or major depression occurred in 11.4% of people with diabetes, compared to a non-diabetic prevalence of 5%. There’s a long way from 11% to 24% and from 5% to 17%. Another potential explanation for such a high depression rate could of course also be some sort of selection bias at the data acquisition stage, but that’s obviously not the case here. However 3000 interviews is a lot of interviews, so let’s read on…

“Several studies have assessed the impact of depression in diabetes in terms of the individual’s functional ability or quality of life (3,4,13). Brown et al. (13) examined preference-based time tradeoff utility values associated with diabetes and showed that those with diabetes were willing to trade a significant proportion of their remaining life in return for a diabetes-free health state.”

“Depression was assessed using the mood module of the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders questionnaire. This has been validated to provide estimates of mental disorder comparable with those found using structured and longer diagnostic interview schedules (16). The mental disorders examined in the questionnaire included major depressive disorder, dysthymia, minor depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder. [So yes, the depression criteria used in this study are definitely more inclusive than depression criteria including only people with MDD] […] The Short Form Health-Related Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (SF-36) was also included to assess the quality of life of the different population groups with and without diabetes. […] Five groups were examined: the overall population without diabetes and without depression; the overall diabetic population; the depression-only population; the diabetic population without depression; and the diabetic population with depression.”

“Of the population sample, 205 (6.8%) were classified as having major depression, 130 (4.3%) had minor depression, 105 (3.5%) had partial remission of major depression, 79 (2.6%) had dysthymia, and 5 (0.2%) had bipolar disorder (depressed phase). No depressive syndrome was detected in 2,486 (82.6%) respondents. The population point prevalence of doctor-diagnosed diabetes in this survey was 5.2% (95% CI 4.6–6.0). The prevalence of depression in the diabetic population was 23.6% (22.1–25.1) compared with 17.1% (15.8–18.4) in the nondiabetic population. This difference approached statistical significance (P = 0.06). […] There [was] a clear difference in the quality-of-life scores for the diabetic and depression group when compared with the diabetic group without depression […] Overall, the highest quality-of-life scores are experienced by those without diabetes and depression and the lowest by those with diabetes and depression. […] the standard scores of those with no diabetes have quality-of-life status comparable with the population mean or slightly better. At the other extreme those with diabetes and depression experience the most severe comparative impact on quality-of-life for every dimension. Between these two extremes, diabetes overall and the diabetes without depression groups have a moderate-to-severe impact on the physical functioning, role limitations (physical), and general health scales […] The results of the two-factor ANOVA showed that the interaction term was significant only for the PCS [Physical Component Score – US] scale, indicating a greater than additive effect of diabetes and depression on the physical health dimension.”

“[T]here was a significant interaction between diabetes and depression on the PCS but not on the MCS [Mental Component Score. Do note in this context that the no-interaction result is far from certain, because as they observe: “it may simply be sample size that has not allowed us to observe a greater than additive effect in the MCS scale. Although there was no significant interaction between diabetes and depression and the MCS scale, we did observe increases on the effect size for the mental health dimensions”]. One explanation for this finding might be that depression can influence physical outcomes, such as recovery from myocardial infarction, survival with malignancy, and propensity to infection. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this, including changes to the immune system (24). Other possibilities are that depression in diabetes may affect the capacity to maintain medication vigilance, maintain a good diet, and maintain other lifestyle factors, such as smoking and exercise, all of which are likely possible pathways for a greater than additive effect. Whatever the mechanism involved, these data indicate that the addition of depression to diabetes has a severe impact on quality of life, and this needs to be managed in clinical practice.”

May 25, 2017 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Health Economics, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Ophthalmology, Papers, Personal, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology | Leave a comment

Diabetes and the Metabolic Syndrome in Mental Health (I)

As I stated in my goodreads review, ‘If you’re a schizophrenic and/or you have a strong interest in e.g. the metabolic effects of various anti-psychotics, the book is a must-read’. If that’s not true, it’s a different matter. One reason why I didn’t give the book a higher rating is that many of the numbers in there are quite dated, which is a bit annoying because it means you might feel somewhat uncertain about how valid the estimates included still are at this point.

As pointed out in my coverage of the human drug metabolism text there are a lot of things that can influence the way that drugs are metabolized, and this text includes some details about a specific topic which may help to illustrate what I meant by stating in that post that people ‘self-experimenting’ may be taking on risks they may not be aware of. Now, diabetics who need insulin injections are taking a drug with a narrow therapeutic index, meaning that even small deviations from the optimal dose may have serious repercussions. A lot of things influence what is actually the optimal dose in a specific setting; food (“food is like a drug to a person with diabetes”, as pointed out in Matthew Neal’s endocrinology text, which is yet another text I, alas, have yet to cover here), sleep patterns, exercise (sometimes there may be an impact even days after you’ve exercised), stress, etc. all play a role, and even well-educated diabetics may not know all the details.

A lot of drugs also affect glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity, one of the best known drug types of this nature probably being the corticosteroids because of their widespread use in a variety of disorders, including autoimmune disorders which tend to be more common in autoimmune forms of diabetes (mainly type 1). However many other types of drugs can also influence blood glucose, and on the topic of antidepressants and antipsychotics we actually know some stuff about these things and about how various medications influence glucose levels; it’s not a big coincidence that people have looked at this, they’ve done that because it has become clear that “[m]any medications, in particular psychotropics, including antidepressants, antipsychotics, and mood stabilizers, are associated with elevations in blood pressure, weight gain, dyslipidemias, and/or impaired glucose homeostasis.” (p. 49). Which may translate into an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, and impaired glucose control in diabetics. Incidentally the authors of this text observes in the text that: “Our research group was among the first in the field to identify a possible link between the development of obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic derangements (e.g., lipid abnormalities) and the use of newer, second-generation antipsychotic medications.” Did the people who took these drugs before this research was done/completed know that their medications might increase their risk of developing diabetes? No, because the people prescribing it didn’t know, nor did the people who developed the drugs. Some probably still don’t know, including some of the medical people prescribing these medications. But the knowledge is out there now, and the effect size is in the case of some drugs argued to be large enough to be clinically relevant. In the context of a ‘self-experimentation’-angle the example is also interesting because the negative effect in question here is significantly delayed; type 2 diabetes takes time to develop, and this is an undesirable outcome which you’re not going to spot the way you might link a headache the next day to a specific drug you just started out with (another example of a delayed adverse event is incidentally cancer). You’re not going to spot dyslipidemia unless you keep track of your lipid levels on your own or e.g. develop xanthomas as a consequence of it, leading you to consult a physician. It helps a lot if you have proper research protocols and large n studies with sufficient power when you want to discover things like this, and when you want to determine whether an association like this is ‘just an association’ or if the link is actually causal (and then clarifying what we actually mean by that, and whether the causal link is also clinically relevant and/or for whom it might be clinically relevant). Presumably many people taking all kinds of medical drugs these days are taking on risks which might in a similar manner be ‘hidden from view’ as was the risk of diabetes in people taking second-generation antipsychotics in the near-past; over time epidemiological studies may pick up on some of these risks, but many will probably remain hidden from view on account of the amount of complexity involved. Even if a drug ‘works’ as intended in the context of the target variable in question, you can get into a lot of trouble if you only focus on the target variable (“if a drug has no side effects, then it is unlikely to work“). People working in drug development know this.

The book has a lot of blog-worthy stuff so I decided to include some quotes in the coverage below. The quotes are from the first half of the book, and this part of the coverage actually doesn’t talk much about the effects of drugs; it mainly deals with epidemiology and cost estimates. I thus decided to save the ‘drug coverage’ to a later post. It should perhaps be noted that some of the things I’d hoped to learn from Ru-Band Lu et al.’s book (blog coverage here) was actually included in this one, which was nice.

“Those with mental illness are at higher risk and are more likely to suffer the severe consequences of comorbid medical illness. Adherence to treatment is often more difficult, and other factors such as psychoneuroendocrine interactions may complicate already problematic treatments. Additionally, psychiatric medications themselves often have severe side effects and can interact with other medications, rendering treatment of the mental illness more complicated. Diabetes is one example of a comorbid medical illness that is seen at a higher rate in people with mental illness.”

“Depression rates have been studied and are increased in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In a meta-analysis, Barnard et al. reviewed 14 trials in which patients with type 1 diabetes were surveyed for rates of depression.16 […] subjects with type 1 diabetes had a 12.0% rate of depression compared with a rate of 3.4% in those without diabetes. In noncontrolled trials, they found an even higher rate of depression in patients with type 1 diabetes (13.4%). However, despite these overall findings, in trials that were considered of an adequate design, and with a substantially rigorous depression screening method (i.e., use of structured clinical interview rather than patient reported surveys), the rates were not statistically significantly increased (odds ratio [OR] 2.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69–5.4) but had such substantial variation that it was not sufficient to draw a conclusion regarding type 1 diabetes. […] When it comes to rates of depression, type 2 diabetes has been studied more extensively than type 1 diabetes. Anderson et al. compiled a large metaanalysis, looking at 42 studies involving more than 21,000 subjects to assess rates of depression among patients with type 1 versus type 2 diabetes mellitus.18 Regardless of how depression was measured, type 1 diabetes was associated with lower rates of depression than type 2 diabetes. […] Depression was significantly increased in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, with increased ORs for subjects with type 1 (OR = 2.9, 95% CI 1.6 –5.5, […] p=0.0003) and type 2 disease (OR = 2.9, 95% CI 2.3–3.7, […] p = 0.0001) compared with controls. Overall, with multiple factors controlled for, the risk of depression in people with diabetes was approximately twofold. In another large meta-analysis, Ali et al. looked at more than 51,000 subjects in ten different studies to assess rates of depression in type 2 diabetes mellitus. […] the OR for comorbid depression among the diabetic patients studied was higher for men than for women, indicating that although women with diabetes have an overall increased prevalence of depression (23.8 vs. 12.8%, p = 0.0001), men with diabetes have an increased risk of developing depression (men: OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.7–2.1 vs. women: OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.2–1.4). […] Research has shown that youths 12–17 years of age with type 1 diabetes had double the risk of depression compared with a teenage population without diabetes.21 This amounted to nearly 15% of children meeting the criteria for depression.

As many as two-thirds of patients with diabetes and major depression have been ill with depression for more than 2 years.44 […] Depression has been linked to decreased adherence to self-care regimens (exercise, diet, and cessation of smoking) in patients with diabetes, as well as to the use of diabetes control medications […] Patients with diabetes and depression are twice as likely to have three or more cardiac risk factors such as smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyle, or A1c > 8.0% compared with patients with diabetes alone.47 […] The costs for individuals with both major depression and diabetes are 4.5 times greater than for those with diabetes alone.53

“A 2004 cross-sectional and longitudinal study of data from the Health and Retirement Study demonstrated that the cumulative risk of incident disability over an 8-year period was 21.3% for individuals with diabetes versus 9.3% for those without diabetes. This study examined a cohort of adults ranging in age from 51 to 61 years from 1992 through 2000.”

Although people with diabetes comprise just slightly more than 4% of the U.S. population,3 19% of every dollar spent on health care (including hospitalizations, outpatient and physician visits, ambulance services, nursing home care, home health care, hospice, and medication/glucose control agents) is incurred by individuals with diabetes” (As I noted in the margin, these are old numbers, and prevalence in particular is definitely higher today than it was when that chapter was written, so diabetics’ proportion of the total cost is likely even higher today than it was when that chapter was written. As observed multiple times previously on this blog, most of these costs are unrelated to the costs of insulin treatment and oral anti-diabetics like metformin, and indirect costs make out a quite substantial proportion of the total costs).

In 1997, only 8% of the population with a medical claim of diabetes was treated for diabetes alone. Other conditions influenced health care spending, with 13.8% of the population with one other condition, 11.2% with two comorbidities, and 67% with three or more related conditions.6 Patients with diabetes who suffer from comorbid conditions related to diabetes have a greater impact on health services compared with those patients who do not have comorbid conditions. […] Overall, comorbid conditions and complications are responsible for 75% of total medical expenditures for diabetes.” (Again, these are old numbers)

“Heart disease and stroke are the largest contributors to mortality for individuals with diabetes; these two conditions are responsible for 65% of deaths. Death rates from heart disease in adults with diabetes are two to four times higher than in adults without diabetes. […] Adults with diabetes are more than twice as likely to have multiple diagnoses related to macrovascular disease compared to patients without diabetes […] Although the prevalence of cardiovascular disease increases with age for both diabetics and nondiabetics, adults with diabetes have a significantly higher rate of disease. […] The management of macrovascular disease, such as heart attacks and strokes, represents the largest factor driving medical service use and related costs, accounting for 52% of costs to treat diabetes over a lifetime. The average costs of treating macrovascular disease are $24,330 of a total of $47,240 per person (in year 2000 dollars) over the course of a lifetime.17 Moreover, macrovascular disease is an important determinant of cost at an earlier time than other complications, accounting for 85% of the cumulative costs during the first 5 years following diagnosis and 77% over the initial decade. [Be careful here: This is completely driven by type 2 diabetics; a 10-year old newly diagnosed type 1 diabetic does not develop heart disease in the first decade of disease – type 1s are also at high risk of cardiovascular disease, but the time profile here is completely different] […] Cardiovascular disease in the presence of diabetes affects not only cost but also the allocation of health care resources. Average annual individual costs attributed to the treatment of diabetes with cardiovascular disease were $10,172. Almost 51% of costs were for inpatient hospitalizations, 28% were for outpatient care, and 21% were for pharmaceuticals and related supplies. In comparison, the average annual costs for adults with diabetes and without cardiovascular disease were $4,402 for management and treatment of diabetes. Only 31.2% of costs were for inpatient hospitalizations, 40.3% were for outpatient care, and 28.6% were for pharmaceuticals.16

Of individuals with diabetes, 2% to 3% develop a foot ulcer during any given year. The lifetime incidence rate of lower extremity ulcers is 15% in the diabetic population.20 […] The rate of amputation in individuals with diabetes is ten times higher than in those without diabetes.5 Diabetic lower-extremity ulcers are responsible for 92,000 amputations each year,21 accounting for more than 60% of all nontraumatic amputations.5 The 10-year cumulative incidence of lower-extremity amputation is 7% in adults older than 30 years of age who are diagnosed with diabetes.22 […] Following amputation, the 5-year survival rate is 27%.23 […] The majority of annual costs associated with treating diabetic peripheral neuropathy are associated with treatment of ulcers […] Overall, inpatient hospitalization is a major driver of cost, accounting for 77% of expenditures associated with individual episodes of lower-extremity ulcers.24

By 2003, diabetes accounted for 37% of individuals being treated for renal disease in the United States. […] Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure, accounting for 44% of all newly diagnosed cases. […] The amount of direct medical costs for ESRD attributed to diabetes is substantial. The total adjusted costs in a 24-month period were 76% higher among ESRD patients with diabetes compared with those without diabetes. […] Nearly one half of the costs of ESRD are due to diabetes.27” [How much did these numbers change since the book was written? I’m not sure, but these estimates do provide some sort of a starting point, which is why I decided to include the numbers even though I assume some of them may have changed since the publication of the book]

Every percentage point decrease in A1c levels reduces the risk of microvascular complications such as retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy by 40%.5 However, the trend is for A1c to drift upward at an average of 0.15% per year, increasing the risk of complications and costs.17 […] A1c levels also affect the cost of specific complications associated with diabetes. Increasing levels affect overall cost and escalate more dramatically when comorbidities are present. A1c along with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and depression are significant independent predictors of health care
costs in adults with diabetes.”

August 10, 2016 Posted by | Books, Cardiology, Diabetes, Economics, Epidemiology, Health Economics, Medicine, Nephrology, Pharmacology, Psychiatry | Leave a comment

Effects of Antidepressants

I gave the book two stars on goodreads. The contributors to this volume are from Brazil, Spain, Mexico, Japan, Turkey, Denmark, and the Czech Republic; the editor is from Taiwan. In most chapters you can tell that the first language of these authors is not English; the language is occasionally quite bad, although you can usually tell what the authors are trying to say.

The book is open access and you can read it here. I have included some quotes from the book below:

“It is estimated that men and women with depression are 20.9 and 27 times, respectively, more likely to commit suicide than those without depression (Briley & Lépine, 2011).” [Well, that’s one way to communicate risk… See also this comment].

“depression is on average twice as common in women as in men (Bromet et al., 2011). […] sex differences have been observed in the prevalence of mental disorders as well as in responses to treatment […] When this [sexual] dimorphism is present [in rats, a common animal model], the drug effect is generally stronger in males than in females.”

“Several reports indicate that follicular stimulating and luteinizing hormones and estradiol oscillations are correlated with the onset or worsening of depression symptoms during early perimenopause […], when major depressive disorder incidence is 3-5 times higher than the male matched population of the same [age] […]. Several longitudinal studies that followed women across the menopausal transition indicate that the risk for significant depressive symptoms increases during the menopausal transition and then decreases in […] early postmenopause […] the impact of hormone oscillations during perimenopause transition may affect the serotonergic system function and increase vulnerability to develop depression.”

“The use of antidepressant drugs for treating patients with depression began in the late 1950s. Since then, many drugs with potential antidepressants have been made available and significant advances have been made in understanding their possible mechanisms of action […]. Only two classes of antidepressants were known until the 80’s: tricyclic antidepressants and monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Both, although effective, were nonspecific and caused numerous side effects […]. Over the past 20 years, new classes of antidepressants have been discovered: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, selective serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, serotonin reuptake inhibitors and alpha-2 antagonists, serotonin reuptake stimulants, selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, selective dopamine reuptake inhibitors and alpha-2 adrenoceptor antagonists […] Neither the biological basis of depression […] nor the precise mechanism of antidepressant efficacy are completely understood […]. Indeed, antidepressants are widely prescribed for anxiety and disorders other than depression.”

“Taken together the TCAs and the MAO-Is can be considered to be non-selective or multidimensional drugs, comparable to a more or less rational polypharmacy at the receptor level. This is even when used as monotherapy in the acute therapy of major depression. The new generation of selective antidepressants (the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)), or the selective noradrenaline and serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have a selective mechanism of action, thus avoiding polypharmacy. However, the new generation antidepressants such as the SSRIs or SNRIs are less effective than the TCAs. […] The most selective second generation antidepressants have not proved in monotherapy to be more effective on the core symptoms of depression than the first generation TCAs or MAOIs. It is by their safety profiles, either in overdose or in terms of long term side effects, that the second generation antidepressants have outperformed the first generation.”

“Suicide is a serious global public health problem. Nearly 1 million individuals commit suicide every year. […] Suicide […] ranks among the top 10 causes of death in every country, and is one of the three leading causes of death in 15 to 35-year olds.”

“Considering patients that commit suicide, about half of them, at some point, had contact with psychiatric services, yet only a quarter had current or recent contact (Andersen et al., 2000; Lee et al., 2008). A study conducted by Gunnell & Frankel (1994) revealed that 20-25% of those committing suicide had contact with a health care professional in the week before death and 40% had such contact one month before death” (I’m assuming ‘things have changed’ during the last couple of decades, but it would be interesting to know how much they’ve changed).

“In cases of suicide by drug overdose, TCAs have the highest fatal toxicity, followed by serotonin and noradrenalin reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), specific serotonergic antidepressants (NaSSA) and SSRIs […] SSRIs are considered to be less toxic than TCAs and MAOIs because they have an extended therapeutic window. The ingestion of up to 30 times its recommended daily dose produces little or no symptoms. The intake of 50 to 70 times the recommended daily dose can cause vomiting, mild depression of the CNS or tremors. Death rarely occurs, even at very high doses […] When we talk about suicide and suicide attempt with antidepressants overdose, we are referring mainly to women in their twenties – thirties who are suicide repeaters.”

“Physical pain is one of the most common somatic symptoms in patients that suffer depression and conversely, patients suffering from chronic pain of diverse origins are often depressed. […] While […] data strongly suggest that depression is linked to altered pain perception, pain management has received little attention to date in the field of psychiatric research […] The monoaminergic system influences both mood and pain […], and since many antidepressants modify properties of monoamines, these compounds may be effective in managing chronic pain of diverse origins in non-depressed patients and to alleviate pain in depressed patients. There are abundant evidences in support of the analgesic properties of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), particularly amitriptyline, and another TCA, duloxetine, has been approved as an analgesic for diabetic neuropathic pain. By contrast, there is only limited data regarding the analgesic properties of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) […]. In general, compounds with noradrenergic and serotonergic modes of action are more effective analgesics […], although the underlying mechanisms of action remain poorly understood […] While the utility of many antidepressant drugs in pain treatment is well established, it remains unclear whether antidepressants alleviate pain by acting on mood (emotional pain) or nociceptive transmission (sensorial pain). Indeed, in many cases, no correlation exists between the level of pain experienced by the patient and the effect of antidepressants on mood. […] Currently, TCAs (amitriptyline, nortriptiline, imipramine and clomipramine) are the most common antidepressants used in the treatment of neuropathic pain processes associated with diabetes, cancer, viral infections and nerve compression. […] TCAs appear to provide effective pain relief at lower doses than those required for their antidepressant effects, while medium to high doses of SNRIs are necessary to produce analgesia”. Do keep in mind here that in a neuropathy setting one should not expect to get anywhere near complete pain relief with these drugs – see also this post.

“Prevalence of a more or less severe depression is approximately double in patients with diabetes compared to a general population [for more on related topics, see incidentally this previous post of mine]. […] Diabetes as a primary disease is typically superimposed by depression as a reactive state. Depression is usually a result of exposure to psycho-social factors that are related to hardship caused by chronic disease. […] Several studies concerning comorbidity of type 1 diabetes and depression identified risk factors of depression development; chronic somatic comorbidity and polypharmacy, female gender, higher age, solitary life, lower than secondary education, lower financial status, cigarette smoking, obesity, diabetes complications and a higher glycosylated hemoglobin [Engum, 2005; Bell, 2005; Hermanns, 2005; Katon, 2004]”

November 11, 2015 Posted by | Books, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Medicine, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology | Leave a comment