Depression and anxiety are common and highly comorbid, and their comorbidity is associated with poorer outcomes posing clinical and public health concerns. We evaluated the polygenic contribution to comorbid depression and anxiety, and to each in isolation.

Diagnostic codes were extracted from electronic health records for four biobanks [N = 177 865 including 138 632 European (77.9%), 25 612 African (14.4%), and 13 621 Hispanic (7.7%) ancestry participants]. The outcome was a four-level variable representing the depression/anxiety diagnosis group: neither, depression-only, anxiety-only, and comorbid. Multinomial regression was used to test for association of depression and anxiety polygenic risk scores (PRSs) with the outcome while adjusting for principal components of ancestry.

In total, 132 960 patients had neither diagnosis (74.8%), 16 092 depression-only (9.0%), 13 098 anxiety-only (7.4%), and 16 584 comorbid (9.3%). In the European meta-analysis across biobanks, both PRSs were higher in each diagnosis group compared to controls. Notably, depression-PRS (OR 1.20 per s.d. increase in PRS; 95% CI 1.18–1.23) and anxiety-PRS (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.05–1.09) had the largest effect when the comorbid group was compared with controls. Furthermore, the depression-PRS was significantly higher in the comorbid group than the depression-only group (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.06–1.12) and the anxiety-only group (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.11–1.19) and was significantly higher in the depression-only group than the anxiety-only group (OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02–1.09), showing a genetic risk gradient across the conditions and the comorbidity.

This study suggests that depression and anxiety have partially independent genetic liabilities and the genetic vulnerabilities to depression and anxiety make distinct contributions to comorbid depression and anxiety.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is often accompanied by changes in appetite and weight. Prior task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) findings suggest these MDD phenotypes are associated with altered reward and interoceptive processing.

Using resting-state fMRI data, we compared the fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (fALFF) and seed-based connectivity (SBC) among hyperphagic (n = 77), hypophagic (n = 66), and euphagic (n = 42) MDD groups and a healthy comparison group (n = 38). We examined fALFF and SBC in a mask restricted to reward [nucleus accumbens (NAcc), putamen, caudate, ventral pallidum, and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC)] and interoceptive (anterior insula and hypothalamus) regions and also performed exploratory whole-brain analyses. SBC analyses included as seeds the NAcc and also regions demonstrating group differences in fALFF (i.e. right lateral OFC and right anterior insula). All analyses used threshold-free cluster enhancement.

Mask-restricted analyses revealed stronger fALFF in the right lateral OFC, and weaker fALFF in the right anterior insula, for hyperphagic MDD v. healthy comparison. We also found weaker SBC between the right lateral OFC and left anterior insula for hyperphagic MDD v. healthy comparison. Whole-brain analyses revealed weaker fALFF in the right anterior insula, and stronger SBC between the right lateral OFC and left precentral gyrus, for hyperphagic MDD v. healthy comparison. Findings were no longer significant after controlling for body mass index, which was higher for hyperphagic MDD.

Our results suggest hyperphagic MDD may be associated with altered activity in and connectivity between interoceptive and reward regions.

Several social determinants of health (SDoH) have been associated with the onset of major depressive disorder (MDD). However, prior studies largely focused on individual SDoH and thus less is known about the relative importance (RI) of SDoH variables, especially in older adults. Given that risk factors for MDD may differ across the lifespan, we aimed to identify the SDoH that was most strongly related to newly diagnosed MDD in a cohort of older adults.

We used self-reported health-related survey data from 41 174 older adults (50–89 years, median age = 67 years) who participated in the Mayo Clinic Biobank, and linked ICD codes for MDD in the participants' electronic health records. Participants with a history of clinically documented or self-reported MDD prior to survey completion were excluded from analysis (N = 10 938, 27%). We used Cox proportional hazards models with a gradient boosting machine approach to quantify the RI of 30 pre-selected SDoH variables on the risk of future MDD diagnosis.

Following biobank enrollment, 2073 older participants were diagnosed with MDD during the follow-up period (median duration = 6.7 years). The most influential SDoH was perceived level of social activity (RI = 0.17). Lower level of social activity was associated with a higher risk of MDD [hazard ratio = 2.27 (95% CI 2.00–2.50) for highest v. lowest level].

Across a range of SDoH variables, perceived level of social activity is most strongly related to MDD in older adults. Monitoring changes in the level of social activity may help identify older adults at an increased risk of MDD.

Prospective studies are needed to assess the influence of pre-pandemic risk factors on mental health outcomes following the COVID-19 pandemic. From direct interviews prior to (T1), and then in the same individuals after the pandemic onset (T2), we assessed the influence of personal psychiatric history on changes in symptoms and wellbeing.

Two hundred and four (19–69 years/117 female) individuals from a multigenerational family study were followed clinically up to T1. Psychiatric symptom changes (T1-to-T2), their association with lifetime psychiatric history (no, only-past, and recent psychiatric history), and pandemic-specific worries were investigated.

At T2 relative to T1, participants with recent psychopathology (in the last 2 years) had significantly fewer depressive (mean, M = 41.7 v. 47.6) and traumatic symptoms (M = 6.6 v. 8.1, p < 0.001), while those with no and only-past psychiatric history had decreased wellbeing (M = 22.6 v. 25.0, p < 0.01). Three pandemic-related worry factors were identified: Illness/death, Financial, and Social isolation. Individuals with recent psychiatric history had greater Illness/death and Financial worries than the no/only-past groups, but these worries were unrelated to depression at T2. Among individuals with no/only-past history, Illness/death worries predicted increased T2 depression [B = 0.6(0.3), p < 0.05].

As recent psychiatric history was not associated with increased depression or anxiety during the pandemic, new groups of previously unaffected persons might contribute to the increased pandemic-related depression and anxiety rates reported. These individuals likely represent incident cases that are first detected in primary care and other non-specialty clinical settings. Such settings may be useful for monitoring future illness among newly at-risk individuals.

Antidepressant medication and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) are both recommended interventions in depression treatment guidelines based on literature reviews and meta-analyses. However, ‘conventional’ meta-analyses comparing their efficacy are limited by their reliance on reported study-level information and a narrow focus on depression outcome measures assessed at treatment completion. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis, considered the gold standard in evidence synthesis, can improve the quality of the analyses when compared with conventional meta-analysis.

We describe the protocol for a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of antidepressants and IPT for adult acute-phase depression across a range of outcome measures, including depressive symptom severity as well as functioning and well-being, at both post-treatment and follow-up (PROSPERO: CRD42020219891).

We will conduct a systematic literature search in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify randomised clinical trials comparing antidepressants and IPT in the acute-phase treatment of adults with depression. We will invite the authors of these studies to share the participant-level data of their trials. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted using mixed-effects models to assess treatment effects at post-treatment and follow-up for all outcome measures that are assessed in at least two studies.

This will be the first IPD meta-analysis examining antidepressants versus IPT efficacy. This study has the potential to enhance our knowledge of depression treatment by comparing the short- and long-term effects of two widely used interventions across a range of outcome measures using state-of-the-art statistical techniques.

Treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) is imprecise and often involves trial-and-error to determine the most effective approach. To facilitate optimal treatment selection and inform timely adjustment, the current study investigated whether neurocognitive variables could predict an antidepressant response in a treatment-specific manner.

In the two-stage Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response for Clinical Care (EMBARC) trial, outpatients with non-psychotic recurrent MDD were first randomized to an 8-week course of sertraline selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or placebo. Behavioral measures of reward responsiveness, cognitive control, verbal fluency, psychomotor, and cognitive processing speeds were collected at baseline and week 1. Treatment responders then continued on another 8-week course of the same medication, whereas non-responders to sertraline or placebo were crossed-over under double-blinded conditions to bupropion noradrenaline/dopamine reuptake inhibitor or sertraline, respectively. Hamilton Rating for Depression scores were also assessed at baseline, weeks 8, and 16.

Greater improvements in psychomotor and cognitive processing speeds within the first week, as well as better pretreatment performance in these domains, were specifically associated with higher likelihood of response to placebo. Moreover, better reward responsiveness, poorer cognitive control and greater verbal fluency were associated with greater likelihood of response to bupropion in patients who previously failed to respond to sertraline.

These exploratory results warrant further scrutiny, but demonstrate that quick and non-invasive behavioral tests may have substantial clinical value in predicting antidepressant treatment response.

Previous research has shown prospectively that religiosity/spirituality protects against depression, but these findings are commonly critiqued on two grounds, namely: (1) apparent religiosity/spirituality reflects merely an original absence of depression or elevated mood and (2) religiosity/spirituality too often is measured as a global construct. The current study investigates the relationship between depression and religiosity/spirituality by examining its multidimensional structural integrity.

Confirmatory factor analyses with a previously observed cross-cultural factor structure of religiosity/spirituality variables were conducted on an independent sample, diagnostic and familial risk subgroups from this sample, and a subsample of the original cross-cultural sample. Linear regressions onto a previous diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) 5 years prior to assess the potential attenuating impact of a previous depression was explored.

Across familial risk groups and clinical subgroups, each of the previously validated religiosity/spirituality domains was confirmed, namely: religious/spiritual commitment, contemplative practice, sense of interconnectedness, the experience of love, and altruistic engagement. Previous MDD diagnosis was associated with a lower religious/spiritual commitment among high-risk individuals, higher contemplation among low-risk individuals, and lower importance of religion or spirituality regardless of risk group.

Structural integrity was found across familial risk groups and diagnostic history for a multidimensional structure of religiosity/spirituality. Differential associations between a previous diagnosis of MDD and level of religiosity/spirituality across domains suggest a complex and interactive relation between depression, familial risk, and religiosity/spirituality. Accounting for an empirically valid, multidimensional understanding of religiosity/spirituality may advance research on mechanisms underlying the relationship between religiosity/spirituality and mental health.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly heterogeneous condition in terms of symptom presentation and, likely, underlying pathophysiology. Accordingly, it is possible that only certain individuals with MDD are well-suited to antidepressants. A potentially fruitful approach to parsing this heterogeneity is to focus on promising endophenotypes of depression, such as neuroticism, anhedonia, and cognitive control deficits.

Within an 8-week multisite trial of sertraline v. placebo for depressed adults (n = 216), we examined whether the combination of machine learning with a Personalized Advantage Index (PAI) can generate individualized treatment recommendations on the basis of endophenotype profiles coupled with clinical and demographic characteristics.

Five pre-treatment variables moderated treatment response. Higher depression severity and neuroticism, older age, less impairment in cognitive control, and being employed were each associated with better outcomes to sertraline than placebo. Across 1000 iterations of a 10-fold cross-validation, the PAI model predicted that 31% of the sample would exhibit a clinically meaningful advantage [post-treatment Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) difference ⩾3] with sertraline relative to placebo. Although there were no overall outcome differences between treatment groups (d = 0.15), those identified as optimally suited to sertraline at pre-treatment had better week 8 HRSD scores if randomized to sertraline (10.7) than placebo (14.7) (d = 0.58).

A subset of MDD patients optimally suited to sertraline can be identified on the basis of pre-treatment characteristics. This model must be tested prospectively before it can be used to inform treatment selection. However, findings demonstrate the potential to improve individual outcomes through algorithm-guided treatment recommendations.