Gut feelings: the relations between depression, anxiety, psychotropic drugs and the gut microbiome.

The gut microbiome is involved in the bi-directional relationship of the gut - brain axis. As most studies of this relationship are small and do not account for use of psychotropic drugs (PTDs), we explored the relations of the gut microbiome with several internalizing disorders, while adjusting for PTDs and other relevant medications, in 7,656 Lifelines participants from the Northern Netherlands (5,522 controls and 491 participants with at least one internalizing disorder). Disorders included dysthymia, major depressive disorder (MDD), any depressive disorder (AnyDep: dysthymia or MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and any anxiety disorder (AnyAnx: GAD, social phobia and panic disorder). Compared to controls, 17 species were associated with depressive disorders and 3 were associated with anxiety disorders. Around 90% of these associations remained significant (FDR <0.05) after adjustment for PTD use, suggesting that the disorders, not PTD use, drove these associations. Negative associations were observed for the butyrate-producing bacteria Ruminococcus bromii in participants with AnyDep and for Bifidobacterium bifidum in AnyAnx participants, along with many others. Tryptophan and glutamate synthesis modules and the 3,4-Dihydroxyphenylacetic acid synthesis module (related to dopamine metabolism) were negatively associated with MDD and/or dysthymia. After additional adjustment for functional gastrointestinal disorders and irritable bowel syndrome, these relations remained either statistically (FDR <0.05) or nominally (P < 0.05) significant. Overall, multiple bacterial species and functional modules were associated with internalizing disorders, including gut - brain relevant components, while associations to PTD use were moderate. These findings suggest that internalizing disorders rather than PTDs are associated with gut microbiome differences relative to controls.

[Euthanasia requests by patients with a borderline personality organisation]. / Euthanasieverzoek door een patiënt met een borderlinepersoonlijkheidsorganisatie.

Psychodynamic processes may play a role in the evaluation of a euthanasia request from a patient with a borderline personality organization. From the perspective of two-person psychology it is understandable that, unbearable and irremediable suffering (important conditions for euthanasia) are not only characteristics of the patients’ suffering, but also acquire meaning in the interaction with the psychiatrist. It is important that the psychiatrist recognizes immature defence mechanisms and forms of non-mentalizing. Understanding how symptoms of personality pathology may become manifest in the therapeutic relationship can be helpful in the dialogue with the patient about the potential impact of personality dynamics on the request for euthanasia and treatment options.

Robust symptom networks in recurrent major depression across different levels of genetic and environmental risk.

BACKGROUND: Genetic risk and environmental adversity-both important risk factors for major depression (MD)-are thought to differentially impact on depressive symptom types and associations. Does heterogeneity in these risk factors result in different depressive symptom networks in patients with MD? METHODS: A clinical sample of 5784 Han Chinese women with recurrent MD were interviewed about their depressive symptoms during their lifetime worst episode of MD. The cases were classified into subgroups based on their genetic risk for MD (family history, polygenic risk score, early age at onset) and severe adversity (childhood sexual abuse, stressful life events). Differences in MD symptom network structure were statistically examined for these subgroups using permutation-based network comparison tests. RESULTS: Although significant differences in symptom endorsement rates were seen in 18.8% of group comparisons, associations between depressive symptoms were similar across the different subgroups of genetic and environmental risk. Network comparison tests showed no significant differences in network strength, structure, or specific edges (P-value > 0.05) and correlations between edges were strong (0.60-0.71). LIMITATIONS: This study analyzed depressive symptoms retrospectively reported by severely depressed women using novel statistical methods. Future studies are warranted to investigate whether similar findings hold in prospective longitudinal data, less severely depressed patients, and men. CONCLUSIONS: Similar depressive symptom networks for MD patients with a higher or lower genetic or environmental risk suggest that differences in these etiological influences may produce similar symptom networks downstream for severely depressed women.

Using patient self-reports to study heterogeneity of treatment effects in major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUNDS: Clinicians need guidance to address the heterogeneity of treatment responses of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). While prediction schemes based on symptom clustering and biomarkers have so far not yielded results of sufficient strength to inform clinical decision-making, prediction schemes based on big data predictive analytic models might be more practically useful. METHOD: We review evidence suggesting that prediction equations based on symptoms and other easily-assessed clinical features found in previous research to predict MDD treatment outcomes might provide a foundation for developing predictive analytic clinical decision support models that could help clinicians select optimal (personalised) MDD treatments. These methods could also be useful in targeting patient subsamples for more expensive biomarker assessments. RESULTS: Approximately two dozen baseline variables obtained from medical records or patient reports have been found repeatedly in MDD treatment trials to predict overall treatment outcomes (i.e., intervention v. control) or differential treatment outcomes (i.e., intervention A v. intervention B). Similar evidence has been found in observational studies of MDD persistence-severity. However, no treatment studies have yet attempted to develop treatment outcome equations using the full set of these predictors. Promising preliminary empirical results coupled with recent developments in statistical methodology suggest that models could be developed to provide useful clinical decision support in personalised treatment selection. These tools could also provide a strong foundation to increase statistical power in focused studies of biomarkers and MDD heterogeneity of treatment response in subsequent controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated efforts are needed to develop a protocol for systematically collecting information about established predictors of heterogeneity of MDD treatment response in large observational treatment studies, applying and refining these models in subsequent pragmatic trials, carrying out pooled secondary analyses to extract the maximum amount of information from these coordinated studies, and using this information to focus future discovery efforts in the segment of the patient population in which continued uncertainty about treatment response exists.

Casting wider nets for anxiety and depression: disability-driven cross-diagnostic subtypes in a large cohort.

BACKGROUND: In search of empirical classifications of depression and anxiety, most subtyping studies focus solely on symptoms and do so within a single disorder. This study aimed to identify and validate cross-diagnostic subtypes by simultaneously considering symptoms of depression and anxiety, and disability measures. METHOD: A large cohort of adults (Lifelines, n = 73 403) had a full assessment of 16 symptoms of mood and anxiety disorders, and measurement of physical, social and occupational disability. The best-fitting subtyping model was identified by comparing different hybrid mixture models with and without disability covariates on fit criteria in an independent test sample. The best model's classes were compared across a range of external variables. RESULTS: The best-fitting Mixed Measurement Item Response Theory model with disability covariates identified five classes. Accounting for disability improved differentiation between people reporting isolated non-specific symptoms ['Somatic' (13.0%), and 'Worried' (14.0%)] and psychopathological symptoms ['Subclinical' (8.8%), and 'Clinical' (3.3%)]. Classes showed distinct associations with clinically relevant external variables [e.g. somatization: odds ratio (OR) 8.1-12.3, and chronic stress: OR 3.7-4.4]. The Subclinical class reported symptomatology at subthreshold levels while experiencing disability. No pure depression or anxiety, but only mixed classes were found. CONCLUSIONS: An empirical classification model, incorporating both symptoms and disability identified clearly distinct cross-diagnostic subtypes, indicating that diagnostic nets should be cast wider than current phenomenology-based categorical systems.

Testing a machine-learning algorithm to predict the persistence and severity of major depressive disorder from baseline self-reports.

Heterogeneity of major depressive disorder (MDD) illness course complicates clinical decision-making. Although efforts to use symptom profiles or biomarkers to develop clinically useful prognostic subtypes have had limited success, a recent report showed that machine-learning (ML) models developed from self-reports about incident episode characteristics and comorbidities among respondents with lifetime MDD in the World Health Organization World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys predicted MDD persistence, chronicity and severity with good accuracy. We report results of model validation in an independent prospective national household sample of 1056 respondents with lifetime MDD at baseline. The WMH ML models were applied to these baseline data to generate predicted outcome scores that were compared with observed scores assessed 10-12 years after baseline. ML model prediction accuracy was also compared with that of conventional logistic regression models. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve based on ML (0.63 for high chronicity and 0.71-0.76 for the other prospective outcomes) was consistently higher than for the logistic models (0.62-0.70) despite the latter models including more predictors. A total of 34.6-38.1% of respondents with subsequent high persistence chronicity and 40.8-55.8% with the severity indicators were in the top 20% of the baseline ML-predicted risk distribution, while only 0.9% of respondents with subsequent hospitalizations and 1.5% with suicide attempts were in the lowest 20% of the ML-predicted risk distribution. These results confirm that clinically useful MDD risk-stratification models can be generated from baseline patient self-reports and that ML methods improve on conventional methods in developing such models.

The effects of co-morbidity in defining major depression subtypes associated with long-term course and severity.

BACKGROUND: Although variation in the long-term course of major depressive disorder (MDD) is not strongly predicted by existing symptom subtype distinctions, recent research suggests that prediction can be improved by using machine learning methods. However, it is not known whether these distinctions can be refined by added information about co-morbid conditions. The current report presents results on this question. METHOD: Data came from 8261 respondents with lifetime DSM-IV MDD in the World Health Organization (WHO) World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys. Outcomes included four retrospectively reported measures of persistence/severity of course (years in episode; years in chronic episodes; hospitalization for MDD; disability due to MDD). Machine learning methods (regression tree analysis; lasso, ridge and elastic net penalized regression) followed by k-means cluster analysis were used to augment previously detected subtypes with information about prior co-morbidity to predict these outcomes. RESULTS: Predicted values were strongly correlated across outcomes. Cluster analysis of predicted values found three clusters with consistently high, intermediate or low values. The high-risk cluster (32.4% of cases) accounted for 56.6-72.9% of high persistence, high chronicity, hospitalization and disability. This high-risk cluster had both higher sensitivity and likelihood ratio positive (LR+; relative proportions of cases in the high-risk cluster versus other clusters having the adverse outcomes) than in a parallel analysis that excluded measures of co-morbidity as predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Although the results using the retrospective data reported here suggest that useful MDD subtyping distinctions can be made with machine learning and clustering across multiple indicators of illness persistence/severity, replication with prospective data is needed to confirm this preliminary conclusion.