Cargando…

Impact of Personality Disorder Cluster on Depression Outcomes Within Collaborative Care Management Model of Care

Background: Previous studies have suggested that having a comorbid personality disorder (PD) along with major depression is associated with poorer depression outcomes relative to those without comorbid PD. However, few studies have examined the influence of specific PD cluster types. The purpose of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: George, Merit P., Garrison, Gregory M., Merten, Zachary, Heredia, Dagoberto, Gonzales, Cesar, Angstman, Kurt B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5967151/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29785866
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2150132718776877
_version_ 1783325574656163840
author George, Merit P.
Garrison, Gregory M.
Merten, Zachary
Heredia, Dagoberto
Gonzales, Cesar
Angstman, Kurt B.
author_facet George, Merit P.
Garrison, Gregory M.
Merten, Zachary
Heredia, Dagoberto
Gonzales, Cesar
Angstman, Kurt B.
author_sort George, Merit P.
collection PubMed
description Background: Previous studies have suggested that having a comorbid personality disorder (PD) along with major depression is associated with poorer depression outcomes relative to those without comorbid PD. However, few studies have examined the influence of specific PD cluster types. The purpose of the current study is to compare depression outcomes between cluster A, cluster B, and cluster C PD patients treated within a collaborative care management (CCM), relative to CCM patients without a PD diagnosis. The overarching goal was to identify cluster types that might confer a worse clinical prognosis. Methods: This retrospective chart review study examined 2826 adult patients with depression enrolled in CCM. The cohort was divided into 4 groups based on the presence of a comorbid PD diagnosis (cluster A/nonspecified, cluster B, cluster C, or no PD). Baseline clinical and demographic variables, along with 6-month follow-up Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) scores were obtained for all groups. Depression remission was defined as a PHQ-9 score <5 at 6 months, and persistent depressive symptoms (PDS) was defined as a PHQ-9 score ≥10 at 6 months. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were determined for both remission and PDS using logistic regression modeling for the 6-month PHQ-9 outcome, while retaining all study variables. Results: A total of 59 patients (2.1%) had a cluster A or nonspecified PD diagnosis, 122 patients (4.3%) had a cluster B diagnosis, 35 patients (1.2%) had a cluster C diagnosis, and 2610 patients (92.4%) did not have any PD diagnosis. The presence of a cluster A/nonspecified PD diagnosis was associated with a 62% lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.20-0.70). The presence of a cluster B PD diagnosis was associated with a 71% lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.18-0.47). Conversely, having a cluster C diagnosis was not associated with a significantly lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.42-1.65). Increased odds of having PDS at 6-month follow-up were seen with cluster A/nonspecified PD patients (AOR = 3.35; 95% CI 1.92-5.84) as well as cluster B patients (AOR = 3.66; 95% CI 2.45-5.47). However, cluster C patents did not have significantly increased odds of experiencing persistent depressive symptoms at 6-month follow-up (AOR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.45-2.00). Conclusions: Out of the 3 clusters, the presence of a cluster B PD diagnosis was most significantly associated with poorer depression outcomes at 6-month follow-up, including reduced remission rates and increased risk for PDS. The cluster A/nonspecified PD group also showed poor outcomes; however, the heterogeneity of this subgroup with regard to PD features must be noted. The development of novel targeted interventions for at-risk clusters may be warranted in order to improve outcomes of these patients within the CCM model of care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5967151
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59671512018-07-03 Impact of Personality Disorder Cluster on Depression Outcomes Within Collaborative Care Management Model of Care George, Merit P. Garrison, Gregory M. Merten, Zachary Heredia, Dagoberto Gonzales, Cesar Angstman, Kurt B. J Prim Care Community Health Original Research Background: Previous studies have suggested that having a comorbid personality disorder (PD) along with major depression is associated with poorer depression outcomes relative to those without comorbid PD. However, few studies have examined the influence of specific PD cluster types. The purpose of the current study is to compare depression outcomes between cluster A, cluster B, and cluster C PD patients treated within a collaborative care management (CCM), relative to CCM patients without a PD diagnosis. The overarching goal was to identify cluster types that might confer a worse clinical prognosis. Methods: This retrospective chart review study examined 2826 adult patients with depression enrolled in CCM. The cohort was divided into 4 groups based on the presence of a comorbid PD diagnosis (cluster A/nonspecified, cluster B, cluster C, or no PD). Baseline clinical and demographic variables, along with 6-month follow-up Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) scores were obtained for all groups. Depression remission was defined as a PHQ-9 score <5 at 6 months, and persistent depressive symptoms (PDS) was defined as a PHQ-9 score ≥10 at 6 months. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were determined for both remission and PDS using logistic regression modeling for the 6-month PHQ-9 outcome, while retaining all study variables. Results: A total of 59 patients (2.1%) had a cluster A or nonspecified PD diagnosis, 122 patients (4.3%) had a cluster B diagnosis, 35 patients (1.2%) had a cluster C diagnosis, and 2610 patients (92.4%) did not have any PD diagnosis. The presence of a cluster A/nonspecified PD diagnosis was associated with a 62% lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.20-0.70). The presence of a cluster B PD diagnosis was associated with a 71% lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.18-0.47). Conversely, having a cluster C diagnosis was not associated with a significantly lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.42-1.65). Increased odds of having PDS at 6-month follow-up were seen with cluster A/nonspecified PD patients (AOR = 3.35; 95% CI 1.92-5.84) as well as cluster B patients (AOR = 3.66; 95% CI 2.45-5.47). However, cluster C patents did not have significantly increased odds of experiencing persistent depressive symptoms at 6-month follow-up (AOR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.45-2.00). Conclusions: Out of the 3 clusters, the presence of a cluster B PD diagnosis was most significantly associated with poorer depression outcomes at 6-month follow-up, including reduced remission rates and increased risk for PDS. The cluster A/nonspecified PD group also showed poor outcomes; however, the heterogeneity of this subgroup with regard to PD features must be noted. The development of novel targeted interventions for at-risk clusters may be warranted in order to improve outcomes of these patients within the CCM model of care. SAGE Publications 2018-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5967151/ /pubmed/29785866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2150132718776877 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
George, Merit P.
Garrison, Gregory M.
Merten, Zachary
Heredia, Dagoberto
Gonzales, Cesar
Angstman, Kurt B.
Impact of Personality Disorder Cluster on Depression Outcomes Within Collaborative Care Management Model of Care
title Impact of Personality Disorder Cluster on Depression Outcomes Within Collaborative Care Management Model of Care
title_full Impact of Personality Disorder Cluster on Depression Outcomes Within Collaborative Care Management Model of Care
title_fullStr Impact of Personality Disorder Cluster on Depression Outcomes Within Collaborative Care Management Model of Care
title_full_unstemmed Impact of Personality Disorder Cluster on Depression Outcomes Within Collaborative Care Management Model of Care
title_short Impact of Personality Disorder Cluster on Depression Outcomes Within Collaborative Care Management Model of Care
title_sort impact of personality disorder cluster on depression outcomes within collaborative care management model of care
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5967151/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29785866
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2150132718776877
work_keys_str_mv AT georgemeritp impactofpersonalitydisorderclusterondepressionoutcomeswithincollaborativecaremanagementmodelofcare
AT garrisongregorym impactofpersonalitydisorderclusterondepressionoutcomeswithincollaborativecaremanagementmodelofcare
AT mertenzachary impactofpersonalitydisorderclusterondepressionoutcomeswithincollaborativecaremanagementmodelofcare
AT herediadagoberto impactofpersonalitydisorderclusterondepressionoutcomeswithincollaborativecaremanagementmodelofcare
AT gonzalescesar impactofpersonalitydisorderclusterondepressionoutcomeswithincollaborativecaremanagementmodelofcare
AT angstmankurtb impactofpersonalitydisorderclusterondepressionoutcomeswithincollaborativecaremanagementmodelofcare