Search

ObjectiveA major limitation of current suicide research is the lack of power to identify robust correlates of suicidal thoughts or behaviour. Variation in suicide risk assessment instruments used across cohorts may represent a limitation to pooling data in international consortia.MethodHere, we examine this issue through two approaches: (i) an extensive literature search on the reliability and concurrent validity of the most commonly used instruments; and (ii) by pooling data (N∼6,000 participants) from cohorts from the ENIGMA-Major Depressive Disorder (ENIGMA-MDD) and ENIGMA-Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviour (ENIGMA-STB) working groups, to assess the concurrent validity of instruments currently used for assessing suicidal thoughts or behaviour.ResultsOur results suggested a pattern of moderate-to-high correlations between instruments, consistent with the wide range of correlations, r=0.22-0.97, reported in the literature. Two common complex instruments, the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) and the Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation (SSI), were highly correlated with each other (r=0.83), as were suicidal ideation items from common depression severity questionnaires.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that multi-item instruments provide valuable information on different aspects of suicidal thoughts or behaviour, but share a core factor with single suicidal ideation items found in depression severity questionnaires. Multi-site collaborations including cohorts that used distinct instruments for suicide risk assessment should be feasible provided that they harmonise across instruments or focus on specific constructs of suicidal thoughts or behaviours.Key pointsQuestion: To inform future suicide research in multi-site international consortia, it is important to examine how different suicide measures relate to each other and whether they can be used interchangeably.Findings: Findings suggest detailed instruments (such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale and Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation) provide valuable information on suicidal thoughts and behaviour, and share a core factor with items on suicidal ideation from depression severity rating scale (such as the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale or the Beck Depression Inventory).Importance: Results from international collaborations can mitigate biases by harmonising distinct suicide risk assessment instruments.Next steps: Pooling data within international suicide research consortia may reveal novel clinical, biological and cognitive correlates of suicidal thoughts and/or behaviour.

SUMMARYBackgroundSuicidal behavior is highly heterogeneous and complex. A better understanding of its biological substrates and mechanisms could inform the design of more effective suicide prevention and intervention strategies. Neuroimaging studies of suicidality have so far been conducted in small samples, prone to biases and false-positive associations, yielding inconsistent results. The ENIGMA-MDD working group aims to address the issues of poor replicability and comparability by coordinating harmonized analyses across neuroimaging studies of major depressive disorder and related phenotypes, including suicidal behavior.MethodsHere, we pool data from eighteen international cohorts with neuroimaging and clinical measurements in 18,925 participants (12,477 healthy controls and 6,448 people with depression, of whom 694 had attempted suicide). We compare regional cortical thickness and surface area, and measures of subcortical, lateral ventricular and intracranial volumes between suicide attempters, clinical controls (non-attempters with depression) and healthy controls.FindingsWe identified 25 regions of interest with statistically significant (FDRPost-hoc examinations identified neuroimaging markers associated with suicide attempt over and above the effects of depression, including smaller volumes of the left and right thalamus and the right pallidum, and lower surface area of the left inferior parietal lobe.InterpretationThis study addresses the lack of replicability and consistency in several previously published neuroimaging studies of suicide attempt, and further demonstrates the need for well-powered samples and collaborative efforts to avoid reaching biased or misleading conclusions. Our results highlight the potential involvement of the thalamus, a structure viewed historically as a passive gateway in the brain, and the pallidum, a region linked to reward response and positive affect. Future functional and connectivity studies of suicidality may focus on understanding how these regions relate to the neurobiological mechanisms of suicide attempt risk.

A key objective in the field of translational psychiatry over the past few decades has been to identify the brain correlates of major depressive disorder (MDD). Identifying measurable indicators of brain processes associated with MDD could facilitate the detection of individuals at risk, and the development of novel treatments, the monitoring of treatment effects, and predicting who might benefit most from treatments that target specific brain mechanisms. However, despite intensive neuroimaging research towards this effort, underpowered studies and a lack of reproducible findings have hindered progress. Here, we discuss the work of the ENIGMA Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) Consortium, which was established to address issues of poor replication, unreliable results, and overestimation of effect sizes in previous studies. The ENIGMA MDD Consortium currently includes data from 45 MDD study cohorts from 14 countries across six continents. The primary aim of ENIGMA MDD is to identify structural and functional brain alterations associated with MDD that can be reliably detected and replicated across cohorts worldwide. A secondary goal is to investigate how demographic, genetic, clinical, psychological, and environmental factors affect these associations. In this review, we summarize findings of the ENIGMA MDD disease working group to date and discuss future directions. We also highlight the challenges and benefits of large-scale data sharing for mental health research. ENIGMA MDD work is supported by NIH grants U54 EB020403 (Thompson), R01 MH116147 (Thompson), and R01 MH117601 (Jahanshad & Schmaal). LS was supported by an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1140764). AFFDIS cohort: this study was funded by the University Medical Center Goettingen (UMG Startfoerderung) and the research team is supported by German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung, BMBF: 01 ZX 1507, “PreNeSt - e:Med”). Barcelona cohort: MJP is funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación of the Spanish Government and by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through a ‘Miguel Servet’ research contract (CP16–0020); National Research Plan (Plan Estatal de I + D + I 2016–2019); and co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). BRC DeCC cohort: CHYF is supported by NIHR BRC. Calgary cohort: supported by Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Branch Out Neurological Foundation. Cardiff cohort: supported by the Medical Research Council (grant G 1100629) and the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH), funded by Health Research Wales (HS/14/20). CLING cohort: this study was partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) via grants to OG (GR1950/5–1 and GR1950/10–1). CODE cohort: Henrik Walter is supported by a grant of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (WA 1539/4–1). The CODE cohort was collected from studies funded by Lundbeck and the German Research Foundation (WA 1539/4–1, SCHN 1205/3–1, SCHR443/11–1). DIP-Groningen cohort: this study was supported by the Gratama Foundation, the Netherlands (2012/35 to NG). Edinburgh cohort: The research leading to these results was supported by IMAGEMEND, which received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 602450. This paper reflects only the author’s views and the European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. This work was also supported by a Wellcome Trust Strategic Award 104036/Z/14/Z. FOR2107-Marburg cohort: funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, grant FOR2107 KR 3822/7–2 to AK; FOR2107 KI 588/14–2 to TK and FOR2107 JA 1890/7–2 to AJ). Houston cohorts: supported in part by NIMH grant R01 085667 and the Dunn Research Foundation. JCS is supported by the Pat Rutherford, Jr. Endowed Chair in Psychiatry. IMH Study cohort: supported by funding from NHG (SIG/15012) and NMRC CISSP (2018). Melbourne cohort: funded by National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) Project Grants 1064643 (Principal Investigator BJH) and 1024570 (Principal Investigator CGD). Minnesota cohort: the study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH090421; Dr. Cullen) and Biotechnology Research Center (P41 RR008079; Center for Magnetic Resonance Research), the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression, the University of Minnesota Graduate School, and the Minnesota Medical Foundation. This work was carried out in part using computing resources at the University of Minnesota Supercomputing Institute. Münster cohort: funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, grant FOR2107 DA1151/5–1 and DA1151/5–2 to UD; SFB-TRR58, Projects C09 and Z02 to UD) and the Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Research (IZKF) of the medical faculty of Münster (grant Dan3/012/17 to UD). NESDA cohort: The infrastructure for the NESDA study (www.nesda.nl) is funded through the Geestkracht program of the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (Zon-Mw, grant number 10–000–1002) and is supported by participating universities (VU University Medical Center, GGZ inGeest, Arkin, Leiden University Medical Center, GGZ Rivierduinen, University Medical Center Groningen) and mental health care organizations, see www.nesda.nl. Pharmo cohort: supported by ERA-NET PRIOMEDCHILD FP 6 (EU) grant 11.32050.26. PSYABM-NORMENT: supported by the Research Council of Norway (project number 229135). The South East Norway Health Authority Research Funding (project number 2015052). The Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway. San Francisco cohort: supported by NIH/NCCIH 1R61AT009864–01A1. NIMH R01MH085734. SHIP and SHIP-trend cohorts: SHIP is part of the Community Medicine Research net of the University of Greifswald, Germany, which is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grants no. 01ZZ9603, 01ZZ0103, and 01ZZ0403), the Ministry of Cultural Affairs and the Social Ministry of the Federal State of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania. MRI scans in SHIP and SHIP-TREND have been supported by a joint grant from Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany and the Federal State of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania. Stanford cohorts: this work was supported by NIH grant R37 MH101495. The BiDirect Study was supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; grants FKZ-01ER0816 and FKZ-01ER1506). MDS is partially supported by an award funded by the Phyllis and Jerome Lyle Rappaport Foundation. TCH is supported by NIMH grant 5K01MH117442. EJWVS, JL, and TFB are supported by European Research Council grant no. ERC-ADG-2014–671084 INSOMNIA. TFB is supported by a VU University Amsterdam University Research Fellowship 2016–2017. JL is supported by a VU University Amsterdam University Research Fellowship 2017–2018.

Noninvasive neuromodulation, including repetitive trans­cranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and direct current stimulation (tDCS), provides researchers and health care professionals with the ability to gain unique insights into brain functions and treat several neurological and psychiatric conditions. Undeniably, the number of published research and clinical papers on this topic is increasing exponentially. In parallel, several methodological and scientific caveats have emerged in the transcranial stimulation field; these include less robust and reliable effects as well as contradictory clinical findings. These inconsistencies are maybe due to the fact that research exploring the relationship between the methodological aspects and clinical efficacy of rTMS and tDCS is far from conclusive. Hence, additional work is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying the effects of magnetic stimulation and low-intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in order to optimize dosing, methodological designs, and safety aspects.