A global field study of the international classification of diseases (ICD-11) mood disorders clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines

Clinical Utility of ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements for the Classification of Mental, Behavioral or Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review

Case-controlled field studies, ecological implementation field studies, and qualitative or mixed methodology studies have been conducted to evaluate the clinical utility of the ICD-11 clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements (ICD-11 CDDR) for the diagnosis of mental disorders. This systematic review sought to analyze and synthesize the clinical utility indices of these guidelines from the perspectives of mental health professionals (MHPs) and patients from different regions of the world. A systematic search was carried out in five databases Science Direct, Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. The relevant studies were subjected to explicit eligibility criteria, resulting in 19 included studies. The study characteristics were tabulated, methodological quality was assessed, and findings were summarized using convergent narrative synthesis. The overall findings indicated that the clinical utility of the ICD-11 CDDR was positive for the majority of studies (78.95%) that analyzed a wide range of mental disorders. Analyses at the level of the disorder groups also revealed the same trend. Almost only qualitative or mixed studies have identified negative aspects or obstacles of this diagnostic system. The clinical utility of the ICD-11 CDDR for the diagnosis of mental disorders is supported. Future research could resolve concerns regarding the isolated negative outcomes of ICD-11 CDDR performance. Finally, it is necessary to expand the scope of the training programs for MHPs and policymakers regarding the use of these guidelines in clinical practice.

Impact of the changes from ICD-10 to ICD-11 in the diagnosis of depressive disorder in the general population

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization recently revised the criteria for the diagnosis of depressive disorders in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). This most recent version of the classification (ICD-11) presents some notable differences from the previous one that may impact the prevalence rate.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the impact of changes on the diagnosis of depressive episodes in the general population.

METHOD

We used a general population sample (n = 2911; Age, M = 59; Gender, 56 % women) from the project 'Edad con Salud' using face-to-face interviews based on the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Instrument. To explore the impact of changes between ICD-10 and ICD-11, we compared participants with a diagnosis of a depressive disorder and those without, as well as participants who presented depression in only one of the two versions.

RESULTS

When using the ICD-10 criteria, we identified 189 cases of depressive episodes against 186 with ICD-11. Five and two participants were respectively diagnosed only with ICD-10 and ICD-11. The weighted lifetime prevalence is identical using both diagnostic criteria (6.3 %).

CONCLUSION

Despite the changes introduced in the classification, the prevalence of depressive episodes identified by ICD-10 and ICD-11 in a general population sample is almost identical.

Associations between intestinal fatty-acid binding protein and clinical and metabolic characteristics of depression

INTRODUCTION

The topic of increased intestinal permeability is associated with disruption of the intestinal barrier, leading to the "leaky gut" syndrome. Depressive disorders often coexist with abdominal obesity, metabolic syndrome, or its components and complications. Intestinal permeability has been proven to relate to all of the above.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to assess the "leaky gut" blood biomarker - intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP) - in 114 adult patients diagnosed with depressive disorders depending on abdominal obesity comorbidity, depression, anxiety, and stress level, or antidepressant use. The corrected p-value was set at 0.02. We analyzed patients' mental state, diet, anthropometric parameters, metabolic laboratory markers and I-FABP.

RESULTS

There was no difference in circulating I-FABP levels between obese and non-obese patients with depressive disorders (p = 0.648). Similarly, I-FABP levels were not different in patients with different emotional symptoms severity (p = 0.829 for self-assessed depression, p = 0.164 for anxiety, and p = 0.543 for stress). But, I-FABP levels differed significantly between patients treated and not treated with antidepressants (p = 0.011). In general linear model analysis treatment with antidepressants, anxiety severity level, their interaction, along with smoking status, drinks intake, and using dietary supplements were shown to significantly explain I-FABP variance (p < 0.001, R2adj = 0.261).

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbid obesity did not increase intestinal permeability circulating marker, I-FABP, in the population of patients with depressive disorders. Treatment with antidepressants may be connected to higher I-FABP levels. Using dietary supplements, drinks intake, smoking status, or anxiety level may serve as explanatory factors.

Prevalence and correlates of manic/hypomanic and depressive predominant polarity in bipolar disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Identification of the predominant polarity, i.e. hypomanic/manic (mPP) or depressive predominant polarity (dPP), might help clinicians to improve personalised management of bipolar disorder.

AIMS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate prevalence and correlates of mPP and dPP in bipolar disorder.

METHOD

The protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework Registries (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8S2HU). We searched main electronic databases up to December 2023 and performed random-effects meta-analyses of weighted prevalence of mPP and dPP. Odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used for relevant correlates.

RESULTS

We included 28 studies, providing information on rates and/or correlates of mPP and dPP. We estimated similar rates of mPP (weighted prevalence = 30.0%, 95% CI: 23.1 to 37.4%) and dPP (weighted prevalence = 28.5%, 95% CI: 23.7 to 33.7%) in bipolar disorder. Younger age (WMD = -3.19, 95% CI: -5.30 to -1.08 years), male gender (odds ratio = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.76), bipolar-I disorder (odds ratio = 4.82, 95% CI: 2.27 to 10.24), psychotic features (odds ratio = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.41), earlier onset (WMD = -1.57, 95% CI: -2.88 to -0.26 years) and manic onset (odds ratio = 13.54, 95% CI: 5.83 to 31.46) were associated with mPP (P < 0.05). Depressive onset (odds ratio = 12.09, 95% CI: 6.38 to 22.90), number of mood episodes (WMD = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.70 episodes), history of suicide attempts (odds ratio = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.49 to 2.93) and being in a relationship (odds ratio = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.22 to 3.22) were associated with dPP (P < 0.05). No differences were estimated for other variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some limitations, our findings support the hypothesis that predominant polarity might be a useful specifier of bipolar disorder. Evidence quality was mixed, considering effects magnitude, consistency, precision and publication bias. Different predominant polarities may identify subgroups of patients with specific clinical characteristics.

Comparative effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing psychological symptoms among patients with chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) can seriously impair the quality of life of patients and has a remarkable comorbidity with psychological symptoms, which, in turn, can further exacerbate the symptoms of CLBP. Psychological treatments are critical and nonnegligent for the management of CLBP, and thus, should attract sufficient attention. However, current evidence does not suggest the superiority and effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing psychological symptoms among patients with CLBP.Thus, this study was designed to compare the effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for depression, anxiety, and mental health among patients with CLBP and to recommend preferred strategies for attenuating psychological symptoms in clinical practice.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), PubMed, Embase Database, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from database inception until March 2022. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compare different nonpharmacological interventions for depression, anxiety, and mental health among patients with CLBP were eligible. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement was used. Four reviewers in pairs and divided into two groups independently performed literature selection, data extraction, and risk of bias, and certainty of evidence assessments. This NMA was conducted with a random effects model under a frequentist framework. The major outcomes were depression, anxiety, and mental health presented as the standardized mean difference (SMD) with the corresponding 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 66 RCTs that randomized 4806 patients with CLBP met the inclusion criteria. The quality of evidence was typically low or some risks of bias (47 out of 66 trials, 71.3%), and the precision of summary estimates for effectiveness varied substantially. In addition, 7 categories of interventions with 26 specific treatments were evaluated. For depression, mind body therapy (pooled SMD = -1.20, 95% CI: -1.63 to -0.78), biopsychosocial approach (pooled SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.12), and physical therapy (pooled SMD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.02) exhibited remarkable effectiveness in reducing depression compared with the control group. For managing anxiety, mind body therapy (pooled SMD = -1.35, 95% CI: -1.90 to -0.80), multicomponent intervention (pooled SMD = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.88 to -0.06), and a biopsychosocial approach (pooled SMD = -0.46, 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.14) were substantially superior to the control group. For improving mental health, multicomponent intervention (pooled SMD = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.14 to 1.39), exercise (pooled SMD = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.11), and physical therapy (pooled SMD = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.02-0.92) demonstrated statistically substantial effectiveness compared with the control group. The rank probability indicated that mind body therapy achieved the highest effectiveness in reducing depression and anxiety among patients with CLBP. Besides, the combined results should be interpreted cautiously based on the results of analyses evaluating the inconsistency and certainty of the evidence.

CONCLUSION

This systemic review and NMA suggested that nonpharmacological interventions show promise for reducing psychological symptoms among patients with CLBP. In particular, mind body therapy and a biopsychosocial approach show considerable promise, and mind body therapy can be considered a priority choice in reducing depression and anxiety. These findings can aid clinicians in assessing the potential risks and benefits of available treatments for CLBP comorbidity with psychological symptoms and provide evidence for selecting interventions in clinical practice. More RCTs involving different interventions with rigorous methodology and an adequate sample size should be conducted in future research.

Case-controlled field study of the ICD-11 clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for Bodily Distress Disorders

AIMS

Mental disorders characterized by preoccupation with distressing bodily symptoms and associated functional impairment have been a target of major reconceptualization in the ICD-11, in which a single category of Bodily Distress Disorder (BDD) with different levels of severity replaces most of the Somatoform Disorders in ICD-10. This study compared the accuracy of clinicians' diagnosis of disorders of somatic symptoms using either the ICD-11 or ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines in an online study.

METHODS

Clinically active members of the World Health Organization's Global Clinical Practice Network (N = 1065) participating in English, Spanish, or Japanese were randomly assigned to apply ICD-11 or ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines to one of nine pairs of standardized case vignettes. The accuracy of the clinicians' diagnoses as well as their ratings of the guidelines' clinical utility were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, clinicians were more accurate using ICD-11 compared to ICD-10 for every presentation of a vignette characterized primarily by bodily symptoms associated with distress and impairment. Clinicians who made a diagnosis of BDD using ICD-11 were generally correct in applying the severity specifiers for the condition.

LIMITATIONS

This sample may represent some self-selection bias and thus may not generalize to all clinicians. Additionally, diagnostic decisions with live patients may lead to different results.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for BDD represent an improvement over those for Somatoform Disorders in ICD-10 in regard to clinicians' diagnostic accuracy and perceived clinical utility.

Targeting the orexin/hypocretin system for the treatment of neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases: from animal to clinical studies

Orexins (also known as hypocretins) are neuropeptides located exclusively in hypothalamic neurons that have extensive projections throughout the central nervous system and bind two different G protein-coupled receptors (OX1R and OX2R). Since its discovery in 1998, the orexin system has gained the interest of the scientific community as a potential therapeutic target for the treatment of different pathological conditions. Considering previous basic science research, a dual orexin receptor antagonist, suvorexant, was the first orexin agent to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat insomnia. In this review, we discuss and update the main preclinical and human studies involving the orexin system with several psychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases. This system constitutes a nice example of how basic scientific research driven by curiosity can be the best route to the generation of new and powerful pharmacological treatments.

Bipolar disorder in the International Classification of Diseases-Eleventh version: A review of the changes, their basis, and usefulness

The World Health Organization’s 11^th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) including the chapter on mental disorders has come into effect this year. This review focuses on the “Bipolar or Related Disorders” section of the ICD-11 draft. It describes the benchmarks for the new version, particularly the foremost principle of clinical utility. The alterations made to the diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BD) are evaluated on their scientific basis and clinical utility. The change in the diagnostic requirements for manic and hypomanic episodes has been much debated. Whether the current criteria have achieved an optimum balance between sensitivity and specificity is still not clear. The ICD-11 definition of depressive episodes is substantially different, but the lack of empirical support for the changes has meant that the reliability and utility of bipolar depression are relatively low. Unlike the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5^th edition (DSM-5), the ICD-11 has retained the category of mixed episodes. Although the concept of mixed episodes in the ICD-11 is not perfect, it appears to be more inclusive than the DSM-5 approach. Additionally, there are some uncertainties about the guidelines for the subtypes of BD and cyclothymic disorder. The initial results on the reliability and clinical utility of BD are promising, but the newly created diagnostic categories also appear to have some limitations. Although further improvement and research are needed, the focus should now be on facing the challenges of implementation, dissemination, and education and training in the use of these guidelines.

The clinical characterization of the adult patient with bipolar disorder aimed at personalization of management

Bipolar disorder is heterogeneous in phenomenology, illness trajectory, and response to treatment. Despite evidence for the efficacy of multimodal-ity interventions, the majority of persons affected by this disorder do not achieve and sustain full syndromal recovery. It is eagerly anticipated that combining datasets across various information sources (e.g., hierarchical "multi-omic" measures, electronic health records), analyzed using advanced computational methods (e.g., machine learning), will inform future diagnosis and treatment selection. In the interim, identifying clinically meaningful subgroups of persons with the disorder having differential response to specific treatments at point-of-care is an empirical priority. This paper endeavours to synthesize salient domains in the clinical characterization of the adult patient with bipolar disorder, with the overarching aim to improve health outcomes by informing patient management and treatment considerations. Extant data indicate that characterizing select domains in bipolar disorder provides actionable information and guides shared decision making. For example, it is robustly established that the presence of mixed features - especially during depressive episodes - and of physical and psychiatric comorbidities informs illness trajectory, response to treatment, and suicide risk. In addition, early environmental exposures (e.g., sexual and physical abuse, emotional neglect) are highly associated with more complicated illness presentations, inviting the need for developmentally-oriented and integrated treatment approaches. There have been significant advances in validating subtypes of bipolar disorder (e.g., bipolar I vs. II disorder), particularly in regard to pharmacological interventions. As with other severe mental disorders, social functioning, interpersonal/family relationships and internalized stigma are domains highly relevant to relapse risk, health outcomes, and quality of life. The elevated standardized mortality ratio for completed suicide and suicidal behaviour in bipolar disorder invites the need for characterization of this domain in all patients. The framework of this paper is to describe all the above salient domains, providing a synthesis of extant literature and recommendations for decision support tools and clinical metrics that can be implemented at point-of-care.