Wayne Katon

Bio: Wayne Katon is an academic researcher from University of Washington. The author has contributed to research in topics: Depression (differential diagnoses) & Health care. The author has an hindex of 149, co-authored 582 publications receiving 76635 citations. Previous affiliations of Wayne Katon include Seattle Pacific University & Washington University in St. Louis.

Depression and pain comorbidity: a literature review.

Abstract: Because depression and painful symptoms commonly occur together, we conducted a literature review to determine the prevalence of both conditions and the effects of comorbidity on diagnosis, clinical outcomes, and treatment. The prevalences of pain in depressed cohorts and depression in pain cohorts are higher than when these conditions are individually examined. The presence of pain negatively affects the recognition and treatment of depression. When pain is moderate to severe, impairs function, and/or is refractory to treatment, it is associated with more depressive symptoms and worse depression outcomes (eg, lower quality of life, decreased work function, and increased health care utilization). Similarly, depression in patients with pain is associated with more pain complaints and greater impairment. Depression and pain share biological pathways and neurotransmitters, which has implications for the treatment of both concurrently. A model that incorporates assessment and treatment of depression and pain simultaneously is necessary for improved outcomes.

Collaborative Care Management of Late-Life Depression in the Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract: ContextFew depressed older adults receive effective treatment in primary care settings.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of the Improving Mood–Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) collaborative care management program for late-life depression.DesignRandomized controlled trial with recruitment from July 1999 to August 2001.SettingEighteen primary care clinics from 8 health care organizations in 5 states.ParticipantsA total of 1801 patients aged 60 years or older with major depression (17%), dysthymic disorder (30%), or both (53%).InterventionPatients were randomly assigned to the IMPACT intervention (n = 906) or to usual care (n = 895). Intervention patients had access for up to 12 months to a depression care manager who was supervised by a psychiatrist and a primary care expert and who offered education, care management, and support of antidepressant management by the patient's primary care physician or a brief psychotherapy for depresssion, Problem Solving Treatment in Primary Care.Main Outcome MeasuresAssessments at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months for depression, depression treatments, satisfaction with care, functional impairment, and quality of life.ResultsAt 12 months, 45% of intervention patients had a 50% or greater reduction in depressive symptoms from baseline compared with 19% of usual care participants (odds ratio [OR], 3.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.71-4.38; P<.001). Intervention patients also experienced greater rates of depression treatment (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.34-3.79; P<.001), more satisfaction with depression care (OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.66-4.30; P<.001), lower depression severity (range, 0-4; between-group difference, −0.4; 95% CI, −0.46 to −0.33; P<.001), less functional impairment (range, 0-10; between-group difference, −0.91; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.64; P<.001), and greater quality of life (range, 0-10; between-group difference, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32-0.79; P<.001) than participants assigned to the usual care group.ConclusionThe IMPACT collaborative care model appears to be feasible and significantly more effective than usual care for depression in a wide range of primary care practices.

Depression and diabetes: impact of depressive symptoms on adherence, function, and costs.

Abstract: Background Depression is common among patients with chronic medical illness. We explored the impact of depressive symptoms in primary care patients with diabetes on diabetes self-care, adherence to medication regimens, functioning, and health care costs. Methods We administered a questionnaire to 367 patients with types 1 and 2 diabetes from 2 health maintenance organization primary care clinics to obtain data on demographics, depressive symptoms, diabetes knowledge, functioning, and diabetes self-care. On the basis of automated data, we measured medical comorbidity, health care costs, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ) levels, and oral hypoglycemic prescription refills. Using depressive symptom severity tertiles (low, medium, or high), we performed regression analyses to determine the impact of depressive symptoms on adherence to diabetes self-care and oral hypoglycemic regimens, HbA 1c levels, functional impairment, and health care costs. Results Compared with patients in the low-severity depression symptom tertile, those in the medium- and high-severity tertiles were significantly less adherent to dietary recommendations. Patients in the high-severity tertile were significantly distinct from those in the low-severity tertile by having a higher percentage of days in nonadherence to oral hypoglycemic regimens (15% vs 7%); poorer physical and mental functioning; greater probability of having any emergency department, primary care, specialty care, medical inpatient, and mental health costs; and among users of health care within categories, higher primary (51% higher), ambulatory (75% higher), and total health care costs (86% higher). Conclusions Depressive symptom severity is associated with poorer diet and medication regimen adherence, functional impairment, and higher health care costs in primary care diabetic patients. Further studies testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enhanced models of care of diabetic patients with depression are needed.

Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines : impact on depression in primary care

Abstract: Objective. —To compare the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention in patients with depression in primary care with the effectiveness of "usual care" by the primary care physician. Design. —A randomized controlled trial among primary care patients with major depression or minor depression. Patients. —Over a 12-month period a total of 217 primary care patients who were recognized as depressed by their primary care physicians and were willing to take antidepressant medication were randomized, with 91 patients meeting criteria for major depression and 126 for minor depression. Interventions. —Intervention patients received increased intensity and frequency of visits over the first 4 to 6 weeks of treatment (visits 1 and 3 with a primary care physician, visits 2 and 4 with a psychiatrist) and continued surveillance of adherence to medication regimens during the continuation and maintenance phases of treatment. Patient education in these visits was supplemented by videotaped and written materials. Main Outcome Measures. —Primary outcome measures included short-term (30-day) and long-term (90-day) use of antidepressant medication at guideline dosage levels, satisfaction with overall care for depression and antidepressant medication, and reduction in depressive symptoms. Results. —In patients with major depression, the intervention group had greater adherence than the usual care controls to adequate dosage of antidepressant medication for 90 days or more (75.5% vs 50.0%;P Conclusion. —A multifaceted intervention consisting of collaborative management by the primary care physician and a consulting psychiatrist, intensive patient education, and surveillance of continued refills of antidepressant medication improved adherence to antidepressant regimens in patients with major and with minor depression. It improved satisfaction with care and resulted in more favorable depressive outcomes in patients with major, but not minor, depression. (JAMA. 1995;273:1026-1031)

Collaborative Care for Patients with Depression and Chronic Illnesses

Abstract: As compared with controls, patients in the intervention group had greater overall 12-month improvement across glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, 0.58%), LDL cholesterol levels (difference, 6.9 mg per deciliter [0.2 mmol per liter]), systolic blood pressure (difference, 5.1 mm Hg), and SCL-20 depression scores (difference, 0.40 points) (P<0.001). Patients in the intervention group also were more likely to have one or more adjustments of insulin (P = 0.006), antihypertensive medications (P<0.001), and antidepressant medications (P<0.001), and they had better quality of life (P<0.001) and greater satisfaction with care for diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both (P<0.001) and with care for depression (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS As compared with usual care, an intervention involving nurses who provided guideline-based, patient-centered management of depression and chronic disease significantly improved control of medical disease and depression. (Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468676.)

The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs.

Abstract: Cross-sectional data from the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) were analyzed to test the validity of the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) scales as measures of physical and mental health constructs. Results from traditional psychometric and clinical tests of validity were compared. Principal

The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R).

Abstract: ContextUncertainties exist about prevalence and correlates of major depressive disorder (MDD).ObjectiveTo present nationally representative data on prevalence and correlates of MDD by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria, and on study patterns and correlates of treatment and treatment adequacy from the recently completed National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R).DesignFace-to-face household survey conducted from February 2001 to December 2002.SettingThe 48 contiguous United States.ParticipantsHousehold residents ages 18 years or older (N = 9090) who responded to the NCS-R survey.Main Outcome MeasuresPrevalence and correlates of MDD using the World Health Organization's (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), 12-month severity with the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR), the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and the WHO disability assessment scale (WHO-DAS). Clinical reinterviews used the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV.ResultsThe prevalence of CIDI MDD for lifetime was 16.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.1-17.3) (32.6-35.1 million US adults) and for 12-month was 6.6% (95% CI, 5.9-7.3) (13.1-14.2 million US adults). Virtually all CIDI 12-month cases were independently classified as clinically significant using the QIDS-SR, with 10.4% mild, 38.6% moderate, 38.0% severe, and 12.9% very severe. Mean episode duration was 16 weeks (95% CI, 15.1-17.3). Role impairment as measured by SDS was substantial as indicated by 59.3% of 12-month cases with severe or very severe role impairment. Most lifetime (72.1%) and 12-month (78.5%) cases had comorbid CIDI/DSM-IV disorders, with MDD only rarely primary. Although 51.6% (95% CI, 46.1-57.2) of 12-month cases received health care treatment for MDD, treatment was adequate in only 41.9% (95% CI, 35.9-47.9) of these cases, resulting in 21.7% (95% CI, 18.1-25.2) of 12-month MDD being adequately treated. Sociodemographic correlates of treatment were far less numerous than those of prevalence.ConclusionsMajor depressive disorder is a common disorder, widely distributed in the population, and usually associated with substantial symptom severity and role impairment. While the recent increase in treatment is encouraging, inadequate treatment is a serious concern. Emphasis on screening and expansion of treatment needs to be accompanied by a parallel emphasis on treatment quality improvement.