Search

Background: Somatic Symptom Disorders (SSD), Bodily Distress Disorders (BDD) and functional disorders (FD) are associated with high medical and societal costs and pose a substantial challenge to the population and health policy of Europe. To meet this challenge, a specific research agenda is needed as one of the cornerstones of sustainable mental health research and health policy for SSD, BDD, and FD in Europe. Aim: To identify the main challenges and research priorities concerning SSD, BDD, and FD from a European perspective. Methods: Delphi study conducted from July 2016 until October 2017 in 3 rounds with 3 workshop meetings and 3 online surveys, involving 75 experts and 21 European countries. EURONET-SOMA and the European Association of Psychosomatic Medicine (EAPM) hosted the meetings. Results: Eight research priorities were identified: (1) Assessment of diagnostic profiles relevant to course and treatment outcome. (2) Development and evaluation of new, effective interventions. (3) Validation studies on questionnaires or semi-structured interviews that assess chronic medical conditions in this context. (4) Research into patients preferences for diagnosis and treatment. (5) Development of new methodologic designs to identify and explore mediators and moderators of clinical course and treatment outcomes (6). Translational research exploring how psychological and somatic symptoms develop from somatic conditions and biological and behavioral pathogenic factors. (7) Development of new, effective interventions to personalize treatment. (8) Implementation studies of treatment interventions in different settings, such as primary care, occupational care, general hospital and specialty mental health settings. The general public and policymakers will benefit from the development of new, effective, personalized interventions for SSD, BDD, and FD, that will be enhanced by translational research, as well as from the outcomes of research into patient involvement, GP-patient communication, consultation-liaison models and implementation. Conclusion: Funding for this research agenda, targeting these challenges in coordinated research networks such as EURONET-SOMA and EAPM, and systematically allocating resources by policymakers to this critical area in mental and physical well-being is urgently needed to improve efficacy and impact for diagnosis and treatment of SSD, BDD, and FD across Europe. ispartof: Frontiers in Psychiatry vol:9 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: Published online

AimsWhile heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are well described, determinants and outcomes of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) remain unclear. We sought to examine clinical and biochemical predictors of incident HFmrEF in the community.Methods and resultsWe pooled data from four community-based longitudinal cohorts, with ascertainment of new heart failure (HF) classified into HFmrEF [ejection fraction (EF) 41-49%], HFpEF (EF ≥50%), and HFrEF (EF ≤40%). Predictors of incident HF subtypes were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Among 28 820 participants free of HF followed for a median of 12 years, there were 200 new HFmrEF cases, compared with 811 HFpEF and 1048 HFrEF. Clinical predictors of HFmrEF included age, male sex, systolic blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, and prior myocardial infarction (multivariable adjusted P≤ 0.003 for all). Biomarkers that predicted HFmrEF included natriuretic peptides, cystatin-C, and high-sensitivity troponin (P≤ 0.0004 for all). Natriuretic peptides were stronger predictors of HFrEF [hazard ratio (HR) 2.00 per 1 standard deviation increase, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.81-2.20] than of HFmrEF (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.20-1.90, P= 0.01 for difference), and did not differ in their association with incident HFmrEF and HFpEF (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.41-1.73, P= 0.68 for difference). All-cause mortality following the onset of HFmrEF was worse than that of HFpEF (50 vs. 39 events per 1000 person-years, P= 0.02), but comparable to that of HFrEF (46 events per 1000 person-years, P= 0.78).ConclusionsWe found overlap in predictors of incident HFmrEF with other HF subtypes. In contrast, mortality risk after HFmrEF was worse than HFpEF, and similar to HFrEF.

BackgroundDepressive symptoms are correlated with poor health outcomes in adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The prevalence, severity, and treatment of depressive symptoms and potential risk factors, including level of kidney function, in diverse populations with CKD have not been well studied.Study designCross-sectional analysis.Settings & participantsParticipants at enrollment into the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) and Hispanic-CRIC (H-CRIC) Studies. CRIC enrolled Hispanics and non-Hispanics at 7 centers in 2003-2007, and H-CRIC enrolled Hispanics at the University of Illinois in 2005-2008.MeasurementDepressive symptoms measured by Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).PredictorsDemographic and clinical factors.OutcomesElevated depressive symptoms (BDI score ≥11) and antidepressant medication use.ResultsOf 3,853 participants, 27.4% had evidence of elevated depressive symptoms and 18.2% were using antidepressant medications; 31.0% of persons with elevated depressive symptoms were using antidepressants. The prevalence of elevated depressive symptoms varied by level of kidney function: 23.6% for participants with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and 33.8% of those with eGFR