4.6 Article

Six-year longitudinal course and outcomes of subtypes of depression

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
Volume 208, Issue 1, Pages 62-68

Publisher

ROYAL COLL PSYCHIATRISTS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.153098

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NESDA study [10-000-1002]
  2. VU University Medical Center
  3. GGZ inGeest
  4. Arkin
  5. Leiden University Medical Center
  6. GGZ Rivierduinen
  7. University Medical Center Groningen
  8. Lentis
  9. GGZ Friesland
  10. GGz Drenthe
  11. IQ Healthcare
  12. Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL)
  13. Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction (Trimbos)
  14. FP7-Marie Curie CIG [PCIG12-GA-2012-334065]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Clinical and aetiological heterogeneity have impeded our understanding of depression. Aims To evaluate differences in psychiatric and somatic course between people with depression subtypes that differed clinically (severity) and aetiologically (melancholic v. atypical). Method Data from baseline, 2-, 4- and 6-year follow-up of The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety were used, and included 600 controls and 648 people with major depressive disorder (subtypes: severe melancholic n=308; severe atypical n=167; moderate n=173, established using latent class analysis). Results Those with the moderate subtype had a significantly better psychiatric clinical course than the severe melancholic and atypical subtype groups. Suicidal thoughts and anxiety persisted longer in those with the melancholic subtype. The atypical subtype group continued to have the highest body mass index and highest prevalence of metabolic syndrome during follow-up, although differences between groups became less pronounced over time. Conclusions Course trajectories of depressive subtypes mostly ran parallel to each other, with baseline severity being the most important differentiator in course between groups. Copyright and usage (C) The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2016.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available