Elsevier

Journal of Affective Disorders

Volume 241, 1 December 2018, Pages 164-172
Journal of Affective Disorders

Research paper
The lack of meaningful association between depression severity measures and neurocognitive performance

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.034Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Depression severity is not consistently related to the extent of neurocognitive deficit in major depression.

  • Even accounting for the heterogeneity of symptomatology in unmedicated patients Major Depressive Disorder, and gathering specific information about their cognitive complaints, ratings of depressive symptom severity were only weakly related to neurocognitive performance.

  • Neurocognitive performance in depression, which has functional and prognostic significance, is separate from mood and neurovegetative symptoms and must be assessed independently.

Abstract

Background

Neurocognitive deficits are common in depression, but most prior studies have not found strong associations between standard measures of symptom severity and the extent of these neurocognitive deficits. Diagnostic heterogeneity, or the lack of specific questions about neurocognition in these measures, may be undermining these associations.

Method

Neuropsychological performance was assessed via 10 tasks in a sample of 262 unmedicated patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and compared to that in healthy volunteers (n = 140), then correlated with (1) standard measures of depression severity including the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Beck Depression Inventory, (2) previously established, factor-analytically derived symptom factors that characterize the heterogeneity of these scales, and (3) a separate measure of cognitive complaint (Cognitive Failures Questionnaire) that was included to address the absence of specific questions about cognition in standard rating scales.

Results

Neurocognitive performance in these unmedicated MDD patients was not significantly associated with either total scores on the depression severity measures, any of their derived symptom factors, or the degree of subjective cognitive complaint – which itself was most strongly associated with mood disturbance.

Limitations

Depressed patients with the most prominent neurovegetative symptoms may be underrepresented in this sample.

Conclusions

Neurocognitive deficits were only weakly associated with standard depression symptom ratings, and not captured by self-report ratings of cognitive complaint. Neurocognitive deficits appear to be a separate symptom dimension that cannot be inferred from overall depression severity and require their own assessment, given that they have prognostic value for functional outcomes, suicide risk, and differential therapeutics.

Introduction

Mild to moderate deficits in neurocognitive functioning are common in major depression (for review see Austin et al., 2001, Rock et al., 2014). However, there has been a vexing lack of correlation between measures of depression severity and these neurocognitive deficits that have led to a range of conclusions including that (a) there may not be a consistent association (McClintock et al., 2010), that (b) the association is only evident when considering large numbers of patients across a wide range of depression severity (McDermott and Ebmeier, 2009), or that (c) neurocognitive deficits only occur in a subsample of patients (e.g., see Iverson et al., 2011).

Studies of the association between neurocognitive functioning and depression severity as assessed via standard depression rating scales have been markedly inconsistent: some report an association (Cataldo et al., 2005, Naismith et al., 2003) while others find none (Abas et al., 1990, Brown et al., 1994). A meta-analysis cumulating across multiple studies found a moderate correlation between depression severity and performance on tasks of episodic memory, processing speed, and executive function (McDermott and Ebmeier, 2009), but included studies of both unmedicated and medicated patients, which may distort these associations. Although some studies have excluded medicated patients (Baudic et al., 2004, Martin et al., 1991), most include them (Airaksinen et al., 2004, Biringer et al., 2005, Harvey et al., 2004, Kessing, 1998, Kiosses et al., 2001, Naismith et al., 2003, Neu et al., 2005, Paradiso et al., 1997, Stordal et al., 2004, Taylor et al., 2002, Wang et al., 2006), and medication status was not reported in others (see McDermott and Ebmeier, 2009, Rohling et al., 2002). Depressed patients with psychosis have been included in some studies as well (Burt et al., 2000, Naismith et al., 2003, Majer et al., 2004).

Different depression rating scales have been used in these studies, including the 17- and 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17; HDRS-24; Grant et al., 2001, Burt et al., 2000), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Wang et al., 2006), the Clinical Interview for Depression (CID; Murphy et al., 2003), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS; Beblo et al., 1999) or a combination of such measures (e.g., Kessing, 1998, Martin et al., 1991, Porter et al., 2003). However, even among studies using the same scales, there is little consistent association between symptom severity and neurocognitive difficulty (McClintock et al., 2010).

The purpose of this study was to directly test the contention that there is little to no association between neurocognition and depression severity, using a relatively large sample of unmedicated non-psychotic patients (n = 262), by carefully examining associations between neuropsychological test performance and a number of aspects of symptom severity. Initially, we examined relationships between test performance and summary scores of two standard depression rating scales – the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory.

We then decomposed these scales into factors to account for these scales’ heterogeneity. Previous studies from our lab have found that both the HDRS-24 and the BDI are not unitary scales (Grunebaum et al., 2005), and that factor-analytically derived “symptom clusters” from these scales may be more informative about underlying biological factors (such as regional cerebral glucose metabolism; Milak et al., 2005, Milak et al., 2010) and clinical characteristics (risk for suicide attempt and suicidal ideation; Grunebaum et al., 2005, Keilp et al., 2012, Keilp et al., 2018) than total scores. We speculated that these more specific symptom factor scores may better identify sets of symptoms associated with depression-related neurocognitive difficulty.

Finally, we added a specific measure of subjective cognitive complaint to our symptom assessment. The lack of association between measures of depression severity and actual neurocognitive performance may simply reflect the absence of specific questions about neurocognitive performance in standard depression rating scales. Both the HDRS-24 and the original BDI only ask broadly about “work difficulties” in a single item. The revised BDI-II has modified this single item to ask more specifically about concentration difficulties, but this is the only item in this scale that asks directly about neurocognitive performance. In this study, we obtained more specific information about subjective neurocognitive complaints using a separate scale, the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ-25; Broadbent et al., 1982), a 25-item questionnaire including questions about cognitive lapses, to determine if these specific questions about cognition were more closely related to actual neurocognitive performance. This scale can also be decomposed into factors assessing memory complaints, distractibility, lapses in concentration (“blunders”), and naming failures, which provide an even more detailed characterization of patients’ complaints (Wallace et al., 2002, Pollina et al., 1992). If the depression severity scales themselves failed to correlate with neurocognitive performance, the CFQ-25 might indicate the types of questions to be added to symptom assessments to improve the characterization of these deficits.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants were 262 unmedicated patients with unipolar major depression enrolled in various clinical and biological studies (predictive, genetic, neurochemical, and/or imaging) at an academic medical center. A minimum score of ≥16 on the first seventeen items of the HDRS was required at the time of admission to the study (although at time of assessment, some patients had experienced some remission of symptoms, as noted below). Patients with psychosis were excluded. All patients were medically

Demographic and clinical characteristics

Depressed patients were older than healthy volunteers and had a higher proportion of females (both of which were accounted for in demographic adjustments of test scores), but with equivalent levels of educational attainment and comparable estimated intelligence (Table 1.). Samples were relatively well-educated with above-average estimated intelligence.

Depressed patients ranged in age from 18 to 72 and patients’ average age of onset was in their early 20′s, with multiple prior episodes, and a

Discussion

Depression severity measures, as well as ratings of subjective cognitive complaint, were only very weakly related to actual neurocognitive performance in this sample of unmedicated MDD patients, to a degree that did not meet our minimal significance standards. In all cases, across the entire sample, less than 5% of shared variance was explained by symptom severity, whether these included standard depression severity total scores, derived symptom factor scores, or specific questions regarding

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contributions of the staff of the Clinical Evaluation Core of the Conte Center for the Study of Suicidal Behavior. We also acknowledge the generosity of the patients who volunteered for this study in a time of significant personal distress.

References (77)

  • J.G. Keilp et al.

    Attention deficit in depressed suicide attempters

    Psychiatry Res.

    (2008)
  • J.G. Keilp et al.

    Suicidal ideation and the subjective aspects of depression

    J. Affect. Disord.

    (2012)
  • J.G. Keilp et al.

    Correlates of trait impulsiveness in performance measures and neuropsychological tests

    Psychiatry Res.

    (2005)
  • J.G. Keilp et al.

    Intact alteration performance in high lethality suicide attempters

    Psychiatry Res.

    (2014)
  • D.N. Kiosses et al.

    Executive dysfunction and disability in elderly patients with major depression

    Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry

    (2001)
  • L.M. McDermott et al.

    A meta-analysis of depression severity and cognitive function

    J. Affect. Disord.

    (2009)
  • M.S. Milak et al.

    Regional brain metabolic correlates of self-reported depression severity contrasted with clinician ratings

    J. Affect. Disord.

    (2010)
  • P. Neu et al.

    Cognitive function over the treatment course of depression in middle-aged patients: correlation with brain MRI signal hyperintensities

    J. Psychiatr. Res.

    (2005)
  • M.L. Rohling et al.

    Depressive symptoms and neurocognitive test scores in patients passing symptom validity tests

    Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol.

    (2002)
  • C. Shilyansky et al.

    Effect of antidepressant treatment on cognitive impairments associated with depression: a randomised longitudinal study

    Lancet Psychiatry

    (2016)
  • W.D. Taylor et al.

    Greater depression severity associated with less improvement in depression-associated cognitive deficits in older subjects

    Am. J. Psychiatry

    (2002)
  • M.H. Trivedi et al.

    Cognitive dysfunction in unipolar depression: implications for treatment

    J. Affect. Disord.

    (2014)
  • C.E. Wang et al.

    Verbal memory performance of mildly to moderately depressed outpatient younger adults

    J. Affect. Disord.

    (2006)
  • L. Zaninotto et al.

    A meta-analysis of cognitive performance in melancholic versus non-melancholic unipolar depression

    J. Affect. Disord.

    (2016)
  • M. Zimmerman et al.

    Severity classification on the Hamilton depression rating scale

    J. Affect. Disord.

    (2013)
  • M.A. Abas et al.

    Neuropsychological deficits and CT scan changes in elderly depressives

    Psychol. Med.

    (1990)
  • E. Airaksinen et al.

    Cognitive functions in depressive disorders: evidence from a population-based study

    Psychol. Med.

    (2004)
  • M. Austin et al.

    Cognitive deficits in depression: possible implications for functional neuropathology

    Br. J. Psychiatry

    (2001)
  • A.D. Baddeley

    A three minute reasoning test based on grammatical transformations

    Psychon. Sci.

    (1968)
  • R. Baldwin et al.

    Treatment response in late-onset depression: relationship to neuropsychological, neuroradiological and vascular risk factors

    Psychol. Med.

    (2004)
  • S. Baudic et al.

    Executive deficits in elderly patients with major unipolar depression

    J. Geriatr. Psychiatry Neurol.

    (2004)
  • T. Beblo et al.

    Neuropsychological correlates of major depression: a short-term follow-up

    Cogn. Neuropsychiatry

    (1999)
  • A.T. Beck et al.

    Assessment of suicidal intention: the scale for suicide ideation

    J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.

    (1979)
  • A.T. Beck et al.

    An inventory of measuring depression

    Arch. Gen. Psychiatry

    (1961)
  • A.T. Beck et al.

    The measurement of pessimism: the hopelessness scale

    J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.

    (1974)
  • A.L. Benton et al.

    Multilingual Aphasia Examination

    (1983)
  • E. Biringer et al.

    Executive function improvement upon remission of recurrent unipolar depression

    Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci.

    (2005)
  • D.E. Broadbent et al.

    The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates

    Br. J. Clin. Psychol.

    (1982)
  • Cited by (0)

    Supported by the Conte Center for the Neurobiology of Mental Disorders (MH62185, MH62155), the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), and the National Association for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD).

    View full text