25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Diabetes Distress and Depression during COVID-19: Response to Breznoscakova et al. Uncovering the Untold Emotional Toll of Living with Diabetes in the COVID-19 Era

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Dear Editor, We thank Breznoscakova and Pallayova [1] for their highlighting of our ECCE HOMO trial evaluating stepped care for depression in patients with diabetes (PWD). The observed improvements in depression, well-being, and acceptance support stepped care (i.e., continued treatment and stepwise raised intensity until targets are reached in the individual) as useful approach for managing depression in routine care [2]. However, while stepped care provides tailored treatment, particularly for patients with mild to moderate mental conditions (preventing overtreatment), patients in need of intensive mental (e.g., psychiatric) care may be undertreated initially. Precision medicine is not reached. Breznoscakova and Pallayova [1] stress the need for improved mental health care for PWD, both with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), particularly during the pandemic. The prevalence of depression is about twice as high in PWD as in those without diabetes. A recent meta-analysis of controlled studies found that 16% of PWD was affected by clinical depression and further 10% by subclinical depression (depressive symptoms not meeting criteria for diagnosis) [3]. It was estimated that PWD's risk of developing depression was increased by 33% [4]. Correspondingly, in our screening of 2,523 PWD (1,427 with T1D, 1,037 with T2D, and 59 with other types) at a specialized center for the trial [2], we identified 1,154 persons with elevated depressive symptoms (CES-D ≥16) (T1D 44.6%, T2D 46.6%); 770 had symptom scores ≥22, suggesting likely clinical depression (T1D 30.0%, T2D 31.0%). Furthermore, 778 persons reported diabetes distress (PAID ≥40; T1D 29.6%, T2D 32.2%) − 82.0% with concomitant depressive symptoms − which can increase incidence and persistence of depression [5]. These data from before the pandemic indicate demands for mental healthcare in large proportions of PWD and suggest consideration of both clinical and subclinical mental health problems. COVID-19 has posed severe burdens and threats on the general population and the rates of depressive and anxiety disorders have increased by 27.6% and 25.6%, respectively [6]. People with preexisting diseases, such as diabetes and its complications, are at particular risk of a severe course of COVID-19, posing additional burdens on PWD specifically. We suppose that mental health risks may have risen in this group particularly, and findings of substantially increased depression and anxiety symptoms and sleep problems during the pandemic seem to support this [7]. Now, 2 years after the pandemic's beginning, COVID-19-related risks can be better controlled and a certain level of normality has been regained. However, the severe impacts of the pandemic, socially and economically, will be felt for a long time and will continue to affect mental health. The pandemic has increased our need to strengthen mental healthcare [6] and shown that new ways of care are needed. Breznoscakova and Pallayova [1] have outlined the potential of telehealth. In addition, we recommend internet- and mobile-based interventions, which can treat mild, moderate, and even severe (non-suicidal) depression in PWD [8]. Mobile health apps offering mood diaries, exercises, and momentary interventions have been developed and constitute a promising approach where face-to-face contact is not available. Finally, we agree with Breznoscakova and Pallayova [1] that “more individually tailored treatment strategies to mitigate the negative psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diabetes are critically needed.” These strategies could involve precision monitoring to detect worsening glycemic and/or mental health outcomes, recognizing individual patterns, and triggering early, personalized interventions [9]. This approach would constitute a great step towards achieving precision mental healthcare for diabetes. Conflict of Interest Statement The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Funding Sources The ECCE HOMO trial was supported by the Competence Network for Diabetes mellitus, Grant No. 01GI1107, and the German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), Grant No. 82DZD01101, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Author Contributions A.S., B.K., D.E., T.H., and N.H. substantially contributed to the conception of the article and the article preparation. A.S. and D.E. selected relevant studies. A.S. interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. All the authors critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic

          (2021)
          Background Before 2020, mental disorders were leading causes of the global health-related burden, with depressive and anxiety disorders being leading contributors to this burden. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment where many determinants of poor mental health are exacerbated. The need for up-to-date information on the mental health impacts of COVID-19 in a way that informs health system responses is imperative. In this study, we aimed to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence and burden of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders globally in 2020. Methods We conducted a systematic review of data reporting the prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic and published between Jan 1, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, preprint servers, grey literature sources, and consulted experts. Eligible studies reported prevalence of depressive or anxiety disorders that were representative of the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic and had a pre-pandemic baseline. We used the assembled data in a meta-regression to estimate change in the prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders between pre-pandemic and mid-pandemic (using periods as defined by each study) via COVID-19 impact indicators (human mobility, daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, and daily excess mortality rate). We then used this model to estimate the change from pre-pandemic prevalence (estimated using Disease Modelling Meta-Regression version 2.1 [known as DisMod-MR 2.1]) by age, sex, and location. We used final prevalence estimates and disability weights to estimate years lived with disability and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. Findings We identified 5683 unique data sources, of which 48 met inclusion criteria (46 studies met criteria for major depressive disorder and 27 for anxiety disorders). Two COVID-19 impact indicators, specifically daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and reductions in human mobility, were associated with increased prevalence of major depressive disorder (regression coefficient [ B ] 0·9 [95% uncertainty interval 0·1 to 1·8; p=0·029] for human mobility, 18·1 [7·9 to 28·3; p=0·0005] for daily SARS-CoV-2 infection) and anxiety disorders (0·9 [0·1 to 1·7; p=0·022] and 13·8 [10·7 to 17·0; p<0·0001]. Females were affected more by the pandemic than males ( B 0·1 [0·1 to 0·2; p=0·0001] for major depressive disorder, 0·1 [0·1 to 0·2; p=0·0001] for anxiety disorders) and younger age groups were more affected than older age groups (−0·007 [–0·009 to −0·006; p=0·0001] for major depressive disorder, −0·003 [–0·005 to −0·002; p=0·0001] for anxiety disorders). We estimated that the locations hit hardest by the pandemic in 2020, as measured with decreased human mobility and daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, had the greatest increases in prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. We estimated an additional 53·2 million (44·8 to 62·9) cases of major depressive disorder globally (an increase of 27·6% [25·1 to 30·3]) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, such that the total prevalence was 3152·9 cases (2722·5 to 3654·5) per 100 000 population. We also estimated an additional 76·2 million (64·3 to 90·6) cases of anxiety disorders globally (an increase of 25·6% [23·2 to 28·0]), such that the total prevalence was 4802·4 cases (4108·2 to 5588·6) per 100 000 population. Altogether, major depressive disorder caused 49·4 million (33·6 to 68·7) DALYs and anxiety disorders caused 44·5 million (30·2 to 62·5) DALYs globally in 2020. Interpretation This pandemic has created an increased urgency to strengthen mental health systems in most countries. Mitigation strategies could incorporate ways to promote mental wellbeing and target determinants of poor mental health and interventions to treat those with a mental disorder. Taking no action to address the burden of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders should not be an option. Funding Queensland Health, National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Diabetes increases the risk of depression: A systematic review, meta-analysis and estimates of population attributable fractions based on prospective studies

            We aim to examine the relationship between diabetes and depression risk in longitudinal cohort studies and by how much the incidence of depression in a population would be reduced if diabetes was reduced. Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for English-language published literature from January 1990 to December 2017. Longitudinal studies with criteria for depression and self-report doctors' diagnoses or diagnostic blood test measurement of diabetes were assessed. Systematic review with meta-analysis synthesized the results. Study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias were examined. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using random effects models. Population attributable fractions (PAFs) were used to estimate potential preventive impact. Twenty high-quality articles met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The pooled odds ratio (OR) between diabetes and depression was 1.33 (95% CI, 1.18–1.51). For the various study types the ORs were as follows: prospective studies (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.14–1.57); retrospective studies (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05–1.62); self-reported diagnosis of diabetes (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17–1.60); and diagnostic diabetes blood test (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04–1.52). PAFs suggest that over 9.5 million of global depression cases are potentially attributable to diabetes. A 10–25% reduction in diabetes could potentially prevent 930,000 to 2.34 million depression cases worldwide. Our systematic review provides fairly robust evidence to support the hypothesis that diabetes is an independent risk factor for depression while also acknowledging the impact of risk factor reduction, study design and diagnostic measurement of exposure which may inform preventive interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the prevalence of depression between people with and without Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes.

              Diabetes can significantly impact quality of life and mental health. However, inconsistencies have been reported in the prevalence of depression in those with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, and those without. Systematic reviews also included studies without adequate control subjects. We update existing literature, by comparing depression prevalence between individuals with and without Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Psychother Psychosom
                Psychother Psychosom
                PPS
                Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
                S. Karger AG (Allschwilerstrasse 10, P.O. Box · Postfach · Case postale, CH–4009, Basel, Switzerland · Schweiz · Suisse, Phone: +41 61 306 11 11, Fax: +41 61 306 12 34, karger@karger.com )
                0033-3190
                1423-0348
                6 May 2022
                6 May 2022
                : 1-2
                Affiliations
                [1] aResearch Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim, Diabetes Center Mergentheim, Bad Mergentheim, Germany
                [2] bGerman Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), Muenchen-Neuherberg, Germany
                [3] cDepartment for Psychology, Otto-Friedrich-University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany
                Author notes
                Article
                pps-0001
                10.1159/000524602
                9148900
                35526518
                91d5e636-fca9-4dea-b3cd-d066eae7c10c
                Copyright © 2022 by S. Karger AG, Basel

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

                History
                : 7 April 2022
                : 8 April 2022
                Page count
                References: 9, Pages: 2
                Categories
                Letter to the Editor

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry

                Comments

                Comment on this article