Search

The Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) is a common screening tool for bipolar disorder that assesses manic symptoms. Its utility for genetic studies of mania or bipolar traits has not been fully examined. We psychometrically compared the MDQ to self-reported bipolar disorder in participants from the United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Care Research Mental Health BioResource. We conducted genome-wide association studies of manic symptom quantitative traits and symptom subgroups, derived from the MDQ items (N = 11,568–19,859). We calculated genetic correlations with bipolar disorder and other psychiatric and behavioral traits. The MDQ screener showed low positive predictive value (0.29) for self-reported bipolar disorder. Neither concurrent nor lifetime manic symptoms were genetically correlated with bipolar disorder. Lifetime manic symptoms had a highest genetic correlation (rg = 1.0) with posttraumatic stress disorder although this was not confirmed by within-cohort phenotypic correlations (rp = 0.41). Other significant genetic correlations included attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (rg = 0.69), insomnia (rg = 0.55), and major depressive disorder (rg = 0.42). Our study adds to existing literature questioning the MDQ's validity and suggests it may capture symptoms of general distress or psychopathology, rather than hypomania/mania specifically, in at-risk populations.

BackgroundAnxiety and depressive disorders often co-occur and the order of their emergence may be associated with different clinical outcomes. However, minimal research has been conducted on anxiety-anxiety comorbidity. This study examined factors associated with anxiety comorbidity and anxiety-MDD temporal sequence.MethodsOnline, self-report data were collected from the UK-based GLAD and COPING NBR cohorts (N = 38,775). Logistic regression analyses compared differences in sociodemographic, trauma, and clinical factors between single anxiety, anxiety-anxiety comorbidity, anxiety-MDD (major depressive disorder) comorbidity, and MDD-only. Additionally, anxiety-first and MDD-first anxiety-MDD were compared. Differences in familial risk were assessed in those participants with self-reported family history or genotype data.ResultsAnxiety-anxiety and anxiety-MDD had higher rates of self-reported anxiety or depressive disorder diagnoses, younger age of onset, and higher recurrence than single anxiety. Anxiety-MDD displayed greater clinical severity/complexity than MDD only. Anxiety-anxiety had more severe current anxiety symptoms, less severe current depressive symptoms, and reduced likelihood of self-reporting an anxiety/depressive disorder diagnosis than anxiety-MDD. Anxiety-first anxiety-MDD had a younger age of onset, more severe anxiety symptoms, and less likelihood of self-reporting a diagnosis than MDD-first. Minimal differences in familial risk were found.LimitationsSelf-report, retrospective measures may introduce recall bias. The familial risk analyses were likely underpowered.ConclusionsAnxiety-anxiety comorbidity displayed a similarly severe and complex profile of symptoms as anxiety-MDD but distinct features. For anxiety-MDD, first-onset anxiety had an earlier age of onset and greater severity than MDD-first. Anxiety disorders and comorbidity warrant further investigation and attention in research and practice.

BackgroundPosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) are commonly reported co-occurring mental health consequences of psychological trauma exposure. The disorders have high genetic overlap. Trauma is a complex phenotype but research suggests that trauma sensitivity has a heritable basis. We investigated whether sensitivity to trauma in those with MDD reflects a similar genetic component in those with PTSD.MethodsGenetic correlations between PTSD and MDD in individuals reporting trauma and MDD in individuals not reporting trauma were estimated, as well as with recurrent MDD and single-episode MDD, using genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics. Genetic correlations were replicated using PTSD data from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium and the Million Veteran Program. Polygenic risk scores were generated in UK Biobank participants who met the criteria for lifetime MDD (N = 29 471). We investigated whether genetic loading for PTSD was associated with reporting trauma in these individuals.ResultsGenetic loading for PTSD was significantly associated with reporting trauma in individuals with MDD [OR 1.04 (95% CI 1.01–1.07), Empirical-p = 0.02]. PTSD was significantly more genetically correlated with recurrent MDD than with MDD in individuals not reporting trauma (rg differences = ~0.2, p < 0.008). Participants who had experienced recurrent MDD reported significantly higher rates of trauma than participants who had experienced single-episode MDD (χ2 > 166, p < 0.001)ConclusionsOur findings point towards the existence of genetic variants associated with trauma sensitivity that might be shared between PTSD and MDD, although replication with better powered GWAS is needed. Our findings corroborate previous research highlighting trauma exposure as a key risk factor for recurrent MDD.

ObjectiveThe Eating Disorders Genetics Initiative United Kingdom (EDGI UK), part of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Mental Health BioResource, aims to deepen our understanding of the environmental and genetic aetiology of eating disorders. EDGI UK launched in February 2020 and is partnered with the UK eating disorders charity, Beat. There are multiple EDGI branches worldwide.MethodEDGI UK recruits via media and clinical services. Anyone living in England, at least 16 years old, with a lifetime probable or clinical eating disorder is eligible to sign up online:edgiuk.org. Participants complete online questionnaires, donate a saliva sample for genetic analysis, and consent to medical record linkage and recontact for future studies.ResultsAs of September 2022, EDGI UK has recruited 8,397 survey participants: 98% female, 93% white, 97.7% cisgender, 67% heterosexual, and 52% have a university degree. Half (51.7%) of participants have returned their saliva kit. The most common diagnoses are anorexia nervosa (42.7%), atypical anorexia nervosa (31.4%), bulimia nervosa (33.2%), binge-eating disorder (14.6%), and purging disorder (33.5%).ConclusionEDGI UK is the largest UK eating disorders study but needs to increase its diversity, and efforts are underway to do so. It also offers a unique opportunity to accelerate eating disorder research, and collaboration between researchers and participants with lived experience, with unparalleled sample size.

OBJECTIVE: The disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with poor mental health, including increases in eating disorders and self-harm symptoms. We investigated risk and protective factors for the new onset of these symptoms during the pandemic.METHOD: Data were from the COVID-19 Psychiatry and Neurological Genetics study and the Repeated Assessment of Mental health in Pandemics Study (n = 36,715). Exposures were socio-demographic characteristics, lifetime psychiatric disorder, and COVID-related variables, including SARS-CoV-2 infection/illness with COVID-19. We identified four subsamples of participants without pre-pandemic experience of our outcomes: binge eating (n = 24,211), low weight (n = 24,364), suicidal and/or self-harm ideation (n = 18,040), and self-harm (n = 29,948). Participants reported on our outcomes at frequent intervals (fortnightly to monthly). We fitted multiple logistic regression models to identify factors associated with the new onset of our outcomes.RESULTS: Within each subsample, new onset was reported by: 21% for binge eating, 10.8% for low weight, 23.5% for suicidal and/or self-harm ideation, and 3.5% for self-harm. Shared risk factors included having a lifetime psychiatric disorder, not being in paid employment, higher pandemic worry scores, and being racially minoritized. Conversely, infection with SARS-CoV-2/illness with COVID-19 was linked to lower odds of binge eating, low weight, and suicidal and/or self-harm ideation.DISCUSSION: Overall, we detected shared risk factors that may drive the comorbidity between eating disorders and self-harm. Subgroups of individuals with these risk factors may require more frequent monitoring during future pandemics.PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: In a sample of 35,000 UK residents, people who had a psychiatric disorder, identified as being part of a racially minoritized group, were not in paid employment, or were more worried about the pandemic were more likely to experience binge eating, low weight, suicidal and/or self-harm ideation, and self-harm for the first time during the pandemic. People with these risk factors may need particular attention during future pandemics to enable early identification of new psychiatric symptoms.

Objective: The disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with poor mental health, including increases in eating disorder and self-harm symptoms. We investigated risk and protective factors for new onset of these symptoms during the pandemic. Method: Data were from the COVID-19 Psychiatry and Neurological Genetics study and the Repeated Assessment of Mental health in Pandemics Study (n = 45,058). Exposures were socio-demographic characteristics, lifetime psychiatric disorder, and COVID-related variables, including SARS-CoV-2 infection/illness with COVID-19. We identified four sub-samples of participants without pre-pandemic experience of our outcomes: binge eating (n = 18,172), low weight (n = 19,148), suicidal and/or self-harm ideation (n = 12,650), and self-harm (n = 20,266). Participants reported on our outcomes at frequent intervals (fortnightly to monthly). We fitted four logistic regression models to identify factors associated with new onset of our outcomes. Results: Within each subsample, new onset was reported by: 16.9% for binge eating, 8.9% for low weight, 26.6% for suicidal and/or self-harm ideation, and 3.3.% for self-harm. Shared risk factors included having a lifetime psychiatric disorder, not being in paid employment, and higher pandemic worry scores. Conversely, infection with SARS-CoV-2/illness with COVID-19 was linked to lower odds of all outcomes. Other factors were associated with one outcome, such as pandemic-related loneliness with suicidal and/or self-harm ideation. Discussion: Overall, we detected shared risk factors that may drive the comorbidity between eating disorders and self-harm. Subgroups of individuals with these risk factors may require more frequent monitoring during future pandemics.

Background The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on mental health is still being unravelled. It is important to identify which individuals are at greatest risk of worsening symptoms. This study aimed to examine changes in depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms using prospective and retrospective symptom change assessments, and to find and examine the effect of key risk factors. Method Online questionnaires were administered to 34 465 individuals (aged 16 years or above) in April/May 2020 in the UK, recruited from existing cohorts or via social media. Around one-third (n = 12 718) of included participants had prior diagnoses of depression or anxiety and had completed pre-pandemic mental health assessments (between September 2018 and February 2020), allowing prospective investigation of symptom change. Results Prospective symptom analyses showed small decreases in depression (PHQ-9: −0.43 points) and anxiety [generalised anxiety disorder scale – 7 items (GAD)-7: −0.33 points] and increases in PTSD (PCL-6: 0.22 points). Conversely, retrospective symptom analyses demonstrated significant large increases (PHQ-9: 2.40; GAD-7 = 1.97), with 55% reported worsening mental health since the beginning of the pandemic on a global change rating. Across both prospective and retrospective measures of symptom change, worsening depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms were associated with prior mental health diagnoses, female gender, young age and unemployed/student status. Conclusions We highlight the effect of prior mental health diagnoses on worsening mental health during the pandemic and confirm previously reported sociodemographic risk factors. Discrepancies between prospective and retrospective measures of changes in mental health may be related to recall bias-related underestimation of prior symptom severity.

Background: Reported trauma is associated with differences in the course and outcomes of depression and anxiety. However, no research has explored the association between reported trauma and patterns of clinically relevant symptoms of both depression and anxiety.Methods: We used network analysis to investigate associations between reported trauma and depression and anxiety symptom interactions in affected individuals from the Genetic Links to Anxiety and Depression (GLAD) Study (n = 17720), and population volunteers from the UK Biobank (n = 11120). Participants with current moderate symptoms of depression or anxiety were grouped into reporters and non-reporters of lifetime trauma. Networks of 16 depression and anxiety symptoms in the two groups were compared using the network comparison test.Results: In the GLAD Study, networks of reporters and non-reporters of lifetime trauma did not differ on any metric. In the UK Biobank, the symptom network of reporters had significantly greater density (7.80) than the network of non-reporters (7.05).Limitations: The data collected in the GLAD Study and the UK Biobank are self-reported with validated or semi-validated questionnaires.Conclusions: Reported lifetime trauma was associated with stronger interactions between symptoms of depression and anxiety in population volunteers. Differences between reporters and non-reporters may not be observed in individuals with severe depression and/or anxiety due to limited variance in the presentation of disorder.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives and livelihoods, and people already experiencing mental ill health may have been especially vulnerable.AimsQuantify mental health inequalities in disruptions to healthcare, economic activity and housing.MethodWe examined data from 59 482 participants in 12 UK longitudinal studies with data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Within each study, we estimated the association between psychological distress assessed pre-pandemic and disruptions since the start of the pandemic to healthcare (medication access, procedures or appointments), economic activity (employment, income or working hours) and housing (change of address or household composition). Estimates were pooled across studies.ResultsAcross the analysed data-sets, 28% to 77% of participants experienced at least one disruption, with 2.3–33.2% experiencing disruptions in two or more domains. We found 1 s.d. higher pre-pandemic psychological distress was associated with (a) increased odds of any healthcare disruptions (odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% CI 1.20–1.40), with fully adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.24 (95% CI 1.09–1.41) for disruption to procedures to 1.33 (95% CI 1.20–1.49) for disruptions to prescriptions or medication access; (b) loss of employment (odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.21) and income (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 –1.19), and reductions in working hours/furlough (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.00–1.09) and (c) increased likelihood of experiencing a disruption in at least two domains (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18–1.32) or in one domain (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07–1.16), relative to no disruption. There were no associations with housing disruptions (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97–1.03).ConclusionsPeople experiencing psychological distress pre-pandemic were more likely to experience healthcare and economic disruptions, and clusters of disruptions across multiple domains during the pandemic. Failing to address these disruptions risks further widening mental health inequalities.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic with its associated virus suppression measures have disrupted many domains of life for many people. Increasingly it is recognised that negative disruptive impacts of the pandemic are not experienced equally and may exacerbate existing inequalities. People already suffering from psychological distress may have been especially vulnerable to disruptions. We investigated associations between pre-pandemic psychological distress and disruptions to healthcare, economic activity, and housing, and whether these associations were moderated by age, sex, ethnicity or education. Methods Data were from 59,482 participants in 12 UK longitudinal adult population surveys with both pre-pandemic and COVID-19 surveys. Participants self-reported disruptions since the start of the pandemic to: healthcare (medication access, procedures, or appointments); economic activity (negative changes in employment, income or working hours); and housing (change of address or household composition). These were also combined into a cumulative measure indicating how many of these three domains had been disrupted. Logistic regression models were used within each study to estimate associations between pre-pandemic standardised psychological distress scores and disruption outcomes. Analyses were weighted for sampling design and attrition, and adjusted for age, sex, education, ethnicity, and UK country. Findings were synthesised using a random effects meta-analysis with restricted maximum likelihood. Effect modification by sex, education, ethnicity and age was assessed using group-difference tests during meta-analysis. Results While exact prevalence varied between studies, pre-pandemic psychological distress was generally more common among women, ethnic minorities, younger age groups, and those with less education. One standard deviation higher psychological distress was associated with raised odds of health care disruptions (OR 1.40; 95% CI: 1.29–1.51; Heterogeneity I2: 79.4%) and with experiencing disruptions in two or more of the three domains examined (OR 1.22; 95% CI: 1.14–1.31; Heterogeneity I2: 75.8%), but not specifically with disruptions to economic activity (OR 1.03; 95% CI: 0.95–1.13; Heterogeneity I2: 89.5%) or housing (OR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.97–1.03; Heterogeneity I2: 0.0%). We did not find evidence of these associations differing by sex, ethnicity, education, or age group. Conclusion Those suffering from psychological distress before the pandemic have been more likely to experience healthcare disruptions during the pandemic, and clusters of disruptions across multiple life domains. Individuals suffering from distress may need additional support to manage these disruptions, especially in relation to healthcare. Otherwise, considering psychological distress was already unequally distributed, the pandemic may exacerbate existing inequalities related to gender, ethnicity, education and age.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated virus suppression measures have disrupted lives and livelihoods, potentially exacerbating inequalities. People already experiencing mental ill-health may have been especially vulnerable to disruptions. Aim Investigate associations between pre-pandemic psychological distress and disruptions during the pandemic to (1) healthcare, economic activity, and housing, (2) cumulative disruptions and 3) whether these differ by age, sex, ethnicity or education. Methods Data were from 59,482 participants in 12 UK longitudinal adult population surveys with data collected both prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants self-reported disruptions since the start of the pandemic to: healthcare (medication access, procedures, or appointments); economic activity (negative changes in employment, income or working hours); and housing (change of address or household composition). Logistic regression models were used within each study to estimate associations between pre-pandemic psychological distress scores and disruption outcomes. Findings were synthesised using a random effects meta-analysis with restricted maximum likelihood. Results Between one to two-thirds of study participants experienced at least one disruption during the pandemic, with 2.3-33.2% experiencing disruptions in 2 or more of the 3 domains examined. One standard deviation higher pre-pandemic psychological distress was associated with: (i) increased odds of any healthcare disruptions (OR=1.30; 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.40) with fully adjusted ORs ranging from 1.33 [1.20 to 1.49] for disruptions to prescriptions or medication access and 1.24 [1.09 to 1.41] for disruption to procedures; (ii) loss of employment (OR=1.13 [1.06 to 1.21]) and income (OR=1.12 [1.06 to 1.19]) and reductions in working hours/furlough (OR=1.05 [1.00 to 1.09]); (iii) no associations with housing disruptions (OR=1.00 [0.97 to 1.03]); and (iv) increased likelihood of experiencing a disruption in at least two domains (OR=1.25 [1.18 to 1.32]) or in one domain (OR=1.11 [1.07 to 1.16]) relative to experiencing no disruption. We did not find evidence of these associations differing by sex, ethnicity, education level, or age. Conclusion Those suffering from psychological distress before the pandemic were more likely to experience healthcare disruptions, economic disruptions related to unemployment and loss of income, and to clusters of disruptions across multiple domains during the pandemic. Considering mental ill-health was already unequally distributed in the UK population, the pandemic may exacerbate existing mental health inequalities. Individuals with poor mental health may need additional support to manage these pandemic-associated disruptions.

BackgroundUnderstanding and improving outcomes for people with anxiety or depression often requires large sample sizes. To increase participation and reduce costs, such research is typically unable to utilise “gold-standard” methods to ascertain diagnoses, instead relying on remote, self-report measures.AimsAssess the comparability of remote diagnostic methods for anxiety and depression disorders commonly used in research.MethodParticipants from the UK-based GLAD and COPING NBR cohorts (N = 58,400) completed an online questionnaire between 2018 and 2020. Responses to detailed symptom reports were compared to DSM-5 criteria to generate symptom-based diagnoses of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and agoraphobia. Participants also self-reported any prior diagnoses from health professionals, termed self-reported diagnoses. “Any anxiety” included participants with at least one anxiety disorder. Agreement was assessed by calculating accuracy, Cohen’s kappa, McNemar’s chi-squared, sensitivity, and specificity.ResultsAgreement between diagnoses was moderate for MDD, any anxiety, and GAD, but varied by cohort. Agreement was slight to fair for the phobic disorders. Many participants with self-reported GAD did not receive a symptom-based diagnosis. In contrast, symptom-based diagnoses of the phobic disorders were more common than self-reported diagnoses.ConclusionsAgreement for MDD, any anxiety, and GAD was higher for cases in the case-enriched GLAD cohort and for controls in the general population COPING NBR cohort. For anxiety disorders, self-reported diagnoses classified most participants as having GAD, whereas symptom-based diagnoses distributed participants more evenly across the anxiety disorders. Further validation against gold standard measures is required.