Search

ObjectiveTo investigate the genetic architecture of internalizing symptoms in childhood and adolescence.MethodIn 22 cohorts, multiple univariate genome-wide association studies (GWASs) were performed using repeated assessments of internalizing symptoms, in a total of 64,561 children and adolescents between 3 and 18 years of age. Results were aggregated in meta-analyses that accounted for sample overlap, first using all available data, and then using subsets of measurements grouped by rater, age, and instrument.ResultsThe meta-analysis of overall internalizing symptoms (INToverall) detected no genome-wide significant hits and showed low single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) heritability (1.66%, 95% CI = 0.84-2.48%, neffective = 132,260). Stratified analyses indicated rater-based heterogeneity in genetic effects, with self-reported internalizing symptoms showing the highest heritability (5.63%, 95% CI = 3.08%-8.18%). The contribution of additive genetic effects on internalizing symptoms appeared to be stable over age, with overlapping estimates of SNP heritability from early childhood to adolescence. Genetic correlations were observed with adult anxiety, depression, and the well-being spectrum (|rg| > 0.70), as well as with insomnia, loneliness, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism, and childhood aggression (range |rg| = 0.42-0.60), whereas there were no robust associations with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or anorexia nervosa.ConclusionGenetic correlations indicate that childhood and adolescent internalizing symptoms share substantial genetic vulnerabilities with adult internalizing disorders and other childhood psychiatric traits, which could partially explain both the persistence of internalizing symptoms over time and the high comorbidity among childhood psychiatric traits. Reducing phenotypic heterogeneity in childhood samples will be key in paving the way to future GWAS success.

Background: Various vitamins and minerals have been implicated in the aetiology of depression. Objective: To estimate the effects of micronutrient exposures on major depressive disorder (MDD) and recurrent depression (rMDD) using Mendelian randomisation (MR), a method using genetic data to estimate causal effects given certain assumptions. Methods: We undertook a comprehensive bidirectional MR study of multiple micronutrient exposures on MDD and rMDD. Summary statistics were obtained from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of MDD (cases = 116,209; controls = 314,566) and rMDD (cases = 17,451; controls = 62,482). Results: None of the micronutrients with available genetic instruments were strongly associated with MDD or rMDD using traditional MR methods. However, using methods to increase analytical power by accounting for genetically correlated variants (e.g., cIVW) highlighted five micronutrients with possible causal effects. Point estimates for rMDD were the largest magnitude, with three micronutrients suggestive of a protective effect: serum iron (ORcIVW 0.90 per SD increase; 95% CI 0.85–0.95; p = 0.0003); erythrocyte copper (ORcIVW 0.97; 95% CI 0.95–0.99; p = 0.0004); and 25(OH) vitamin D (ORcIVW 0.81; 0.66–0.99; p = 0.04). Apparent adverse effects of increased selenium on the risk of MDD (ORcIVW 1.03; 95% CI 1.02–1.05; p = 0.0003) and rMDD (ORcIVW 1.08; 95% CI 1.00–1.08; p = 0.06), and serum magnesium on rMDD (ORcIVW 1.21; 1.01–1.44; p = 0.04); were less consistent between methods and may be driven by pleiotropy. Conclusions: Our results suggest weak evidence for a protective effect of iron, copper and 25(OH)D on major depressive outcomes, with mixed evidence for selenium and magnesium. There was no evidence to support a causal effect of any other micronutrients on MDD or rMDD, although genetic instruments were lacking, with insufficient power to detect small but important effects. Future micronutrient supplementation trials should ensure ample statistical power given modest causal effect estimates and consider potential risks of supplementation, as some micronutrient effect estimates suggested potential harm in excess. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mendelian randomization (MR) is a form of instrumental variable analysis used to investigate causality using observational data. Another important, although less frequently applied, use of this technique is to investigate confounding due to reverse causality. Methods We used a form of reverse MR and data from UK Biobank in a proof-of-principle study to investigate confounding due to reverse causation. Here we focus on the association between alcohol consumption (exposure) and outcomes including educational attainment, and physical and mental health. First, we examined the observational relationship between alcohol consumption and these outcomes. Allele scores were then derived for educational attainment, and physical and mental health, and the association with alcohol consumption (as the outcome) was explored. Sample sizes ranged from 114 941–336 473 in observational analyses and 142 093–336 818 in genetic analyses. Results Conventional observational analyses indicated associations between alcohol consumption and a number of outcomes (e.g. neuroticism, body mass index, educational attainment). Analyses using allele scores suggested evidence of reverse causation for several of these relationships (in particular physical health and educational attainment). Conclusion Allele scores allow us to investigate reverse causation in observational studies. Our findings suggest that observed associations implying beneficial effects of alcohol consumption may be due to confounding by reverse causation in many cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing evidence that smoking is a risk factor for severe mental illness, including bipolar disorder. Conversely, patients with bipolar disorder might smoke more (often) as a result of the psychiatric disorder.Aims: We conducted a bidirectional Mendelian randomisation (MR) study to investigate the direction and evidence for a causal nature of the relationship between smoking and bipolar disorder.Method: We used publicly available summary statistics from genome-wide association studies on bipolar disorder, smoking initiation, smoking heaviness, smoking cessation and lifetime smoking (i.e. a compound measure of heaviness, duration and cessation). We applied analytical methods with different, orthogonal assumptions to triangulate results, including inverse-variance weighted (IVW), MR-Egger, MR-Egger SIMEX, weighted-median, weighted-mode and Steiger-filtered analyses.Results: Across different methods of MR, consistent evidence was found for a positive effect of smoking on the odds of bipolar disorder (smoking initiation ORIVW = 1.46, 95% CI 1.28-1.66, P = 1.44 × 10-8, lifetime smoking ORIVW = 1.72, 95% CI 1.29-2.28, P = 1.8 × 10-4). The MR analyses of the effect of liability to bipolar disorder on smoking provided no clear evidence of a strong causal effect (smoking heaviness betaIVW = 0.028, 95% CI 0.003-0.053, P = 2.9 × 10-2).Conclusions: These findings suggest that smoking initiation and lifetime smoking are likely to be a causal risk factor for developing bipolar disorder. We found some evidence that liability to bipolar disorder increased smoking heaviness. Given that smoking is a modifiable risk factor, these findings further support investment into smoking prevention and treatment in order to reduce mental health problems in future generations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly debilitating, difficult to treat, has a high rate of recurrence, and negatively impacts the individual and society as a whole. One potential treatment for MDD is n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFAs), also known as omega-3 oils, naturally found in fatty fish, some other seafood, and some nuts and seeds. Various lines of evidence suggest a role for n-3PUFAs in MDD, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Reviews and meta-analyses clearly demonstrate heterogeneity between studies. Investigations of heterogeneity suggest different effects of n-3PUFAs, depending on the severity of depressive symptoms, where no effects of n-3PUFAs are found in studies of individuals with mild depressive symptomology, but possible benefit may be suggested in studies of individuals with more severe depressive symptomology. Hence it is important to establish their effectiveness in treating MDD. This review updates and incorporates an earlier review with the same research objective (Appleton 2015)., Objectives: To assess the effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (also known as omega-3 fatty acids) versus a comparator (e.g. placebo, antidepressant treatment, standard care, no treatment, wait-list control) for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with trial registries and grey literature sources (to 9 January 2021). We checked reference lists and contacted authors of included studies for additional information when necessary., Selection Criteria: We included studies in the review if they: used a randomised controlled trial design; provided n-3PUFAs as an intervention; used a comparator; measured depressive symptomology as an outcome; and were conducted in adults with MDD. Primary outcomes were depressive symptomology (continuous data collected using a validated rating scale) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptomology (dichotomous data on remission and response), quality of life, and non-completion of studies., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria., Main Results: The review includes 35 relevant studies: 34 studies involving a total of 1924 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to placebo, and one study involving 40 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to antidepressant treatment. For the placebo comparison, n-3PUFA supplementation resulted in a small to modest benefit for depressive symptomology, compared to placebo: standardised mean difference (SMD) (random-effects model) -0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.16; 33 studies, 1848 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but this effect is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. An SMD of 0.40 represents a difference between groups in scores on the HDRS (17-item) of approximately 2.5 points (95% CI 1.0 to 4.0), where the minimal clinically important change score on this scale is 3.0 points. The confidence intervals include both a possible clinically important effect and a possible negligible effect, and there is considerable heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity analyses, funnel plot inspection and comparison of our results with those of large well-conducted trials also suggest that this effect estimate may be biased towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs. Although the numbers of individuals experiencing adverse events were similar in intervention and placebo groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.64; 24 studies, 1503 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the confidence intervals include a small decrease to a modest increase in adverse events with n-3PUFAs. There was no evidence for a difference between n-3PUFA and placebo groups in remission rates (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.72; 8 studies, 609 participants, low-certainty evidence), response rates (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.79; 17 studies, 794 participants; low-certainty evidence), quality of life (SMD -0.38 (95% CI -0.82 to 0.06), 12 studies, 476 participants, very low-certainty evidence), or trial non-completion (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22; 29 studies, 1777 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence on which these results are based was also very limited, highly heterogeneous, and potentially biased. Only one study, involving 40 participants, was available for the antidepressant comparison. This study found no differences between treatment with n-3PUFAs and treatment with antidepressants in depressive symptomology (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -5.88 to 4.48), rates of response to treatment (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.31), or trial non-completion (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.71). Confidence intervals are however very wide in all analyses, and do not rule out important beneficial or detrimental effects of n-3PUFAs compared to antidepressants. Adverse events were not reported in a manner suitable for analysis, and rates of depression remission and quality of life were not reported., Authors' Conclusions: At present, we do not have sufficient high-certainty evidence to determine the effects of n-3PUFAs as a treatment for MDD. Our primary analyses may suggest a small-to-modest, non-clinically beneficial effect of n-3PUFAs on depressive symptomology compared to placebo; however the estimate is imprecise, and we judged the certainty of the evidence on which this result is based to be low to very low. Our data may also suggest similar rates of adverse events and trial non-completion in n-3PUFA and placebo groups, but again our estimates are very imprecise. Effects of n-3PUFAs compared to antidepressants are very imprecise and uncertain. More complete evidence is required for both the potential positive and negative effects of n-3PUFAs for MDD., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly debilitating, difficult to treat, has a high rate of recurrence, and negatively impacts the individual and society as a whole. One emerging potential treatment for MDD is n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFAs), also known as omega-3 oils, naturally found in fatty fish, some other seafood, and some nuts and seeds. Various lines of evidence suggest a role for n-3PUFAs in MDD, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Reviews and meta-analyses clearly demonstrate heterogeneity between studies. Investigations of heterogeneity suggest differential effects of n-3PUFAs, depending on severity of depressive symptoms, where no effects of n-3PUFAs are found in studies of individuals with mild depressive symptomology, but possible benefit may be suggested in studies of individuals with more severe depressive symptomology., Objectives: To assess the effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (also known as omega-3 fatty acids) versus a comparator (e.g. placebo, anti-depressant treatment, standard care, no treatment, wait-list control) for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. , Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Registers (CCDANCTR) and International Trial Registries over all years to May 2015. We searched the database CINAHL over all years of records to September 2013., Selection Criteria: We included studies in the review if they: were a randomised controlled trial; provided n-3PUFAs as an intervention; used a comparator; measured depressive symptomology as an outcome; and were conducted in adults with MDD. Primary outcomes were depressive symptomology (continuous data collected using a validated rating scale) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptomology (dichotomous data on remission and response), quality of life, and failure to complete studies., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane., Main Results: We found 26 relevant studies: 25 studies involving a total of 1438 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to placebo, and one study involving 40 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to antidepressant treatment.For the placebo comparison, n-3PUFA supplementation results in a small to modest benefit for depressive symptomology, compared to placebo: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to -0.52; 25 studies, 1373 participants, very low quality evidence), but this effect is unlikely to be clinically meaningful (an SMD of 0.32 represents a difference between groups in scores on the HDRS (17-item) of approximately 2.2 points (95% CI 0.8 to 3.6)). The confidence intervals include both a possible clinically important effect and a possible negligible effect, and there is considerable heterogeneity between the studies. Although the numbers of individuals experiencing adverse events were similar in intervention and placebo groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.62; 19 studies, 1207 participants; very low-quality evidence), the confidence intervals include a significant increase in adverse events with n-3PUFAs as well as a small possible decrease. Rates of remission and response, quality of life, and rates of failure to complete studies were also similar between groups, but confidence intervals are again wide.The evidence on which these results are based is very limited. All studies contributing to our analyses were of direct relevance to our research question, but we rated the quality of the evidence for all outcomes as low to very low. The number of studies and number of participants contributing to all analyses were low, and the majority of studies were small and judged to be at high risk of bias on several measures. Our analyses were also likely to be highly influenced by three large trials. Although we judge these trials to be at low risk of bias, they contribute 26.9% to 82% of data. Our effect size estimates are also imprecise. Funnel plot asymmetry and sensitivity analyses (using fixed-effect models, and only studies judged to be at low risk of selection bias, performance bias or attrition bias) also suggest a likely bias towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs. There was substantial heterogeneity in analyses of our primary outcome of depressive symptomology. This heterogeneity was not explained by the presence or absence of comorbidities or by the presence or absence of adjunctive therapy.Only one study was available for the antidepressant comparison, involving 40 participants. This study found no differences between treatment with n-3PUFAs and treatment with antidepressants in depressive symptomology (mean difference (MD) -0.70 (95% CI -5.88 to 4.48)), rates of response to treatment or failure to complete. Adverse events were not reported in a manner suitable for analysis, and rates of depression remission and quality of life were not reported., Authors' Conclusions: At present, we do not have sufficient high quality evidence to determine the effects of n-3PUFAs as a treatment for MDD. Our primary analyses suggest a small-to-modest, non-clinically beneficial effect of n-3PUFAs on depressive symptomology compared to placebo; however the estimate is imprecise, and we judged the quality of the evidence on which this result is based to be low/very low. Sensitivity analyses, funnel plot inspection and comparison of our results with those of large well-conducted trials also suggest that this effect estimate is likely to be biased towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs, and that the true effect is likely to be smaller. Our data, however, also suggest similar rates of adverse events and numbers failing to complete trials in n-3PUFA and placebo groups, but again our estimates are very imprecise. The one study that directly compares n-3PUFAs and antidepressants in our review finds comparable benefit. More evidence, and more complete evidence, are required, particularly regarding both the potential positive and negative effects of n-3PUFAs for MDD.