1.
Digital cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia promotes later health resilience during the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic.
Cheng, P, Casement, MD, Kalmbach, DA, Castelan, AC, Drake, CL
Sleep. 2021;44(4)
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has had health consequences that extend well-beyond symptoms of the virus. Mental health problems are already being observed in the context of COVID-19 and have also been documented during previous epidemics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of prior digital cognitive-behavioural therapy for insomnia (dCBT-I) versus sleep education on health resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study is a follow up study based on a previous randomised controlled trial [SPREAD trial] for which the enrolled participants were divided into two groups: 358 in the dCBT-I condition and 300 in the control condition. For this follow-up study 208 participants (dCBT-I: n = 102; control: n = 106) out of the total 658 participants were enrolled. Results indicate that 67.3% of the sample reported direct impact from the coronavirus, and 26.4% reported living alone during the shelter-in-place orders. Furthermore, those who received dCBT-I reported less insomnia, stress, depression, and better global physical health compared to those who received a sleep education control. Authors conclude that future research should examine the mechanisms by which insomnia treatment may enhance resilience, and the role of dCBT-I in mitigating the adverse health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES Stressful life events contribute to insomnia, psychosocial functioning, and illness. Though individuals with a history of insomnia may be especially vulnerable during stressful life events, risk may be mitigated by prior intervention. This study evaluated the effect of prior digital cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (dCBT-I) versus sleep education on health resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS COVID impact, insomnia, general- and COVID-related stress, depression, and global health were assessed in April 2020 in adults with a history of insomnia who completed a randomized controlled trial of dCBT-I (n = 102) versus sleep education control (n = 106) in 2016-2017. Regression analyses were used to evaluate the effect of intervention conditions on subsequent stress and health during the pandemic. RESULTS Insomnia symptoms were significantly associated with COVID-19 related disruptions, and those who previously received dCBT-I reported less insomnia symptoms, less general stress and COVID-related cognitive intrusions, less depression, and better global health than those who received sleep education. Moreover, the odds for resurgent insomnia was 51% lower in the dCBT-I versus control condition. Similarly, odds of moderate to severe depression during COVID-19 was 57% lower in the dCBT-I condition. CONCLUSIONS Those who received dCBT-I had increased health resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic in adults with a history of insomnia and ongoing mild to moderate mental health symptoms. These data provide evidence that dCBT-I is a powerful tool to promote mental and physical health during stressors, including the COVID-19 pandemic. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT02988375.
2.
Reductions in anti-inflammatory gut bacteria are associated with depression in a sample of young adults.
Liu, RT, Rowan-Nash, AD, Sheehan, AE, Walsh, RFL, Sanzari, CM, Korry, BJ, Belenky, P
Brain, behavior, and immunity. 2020;88:308-324
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Alterations to the gut microbiota may be associated with depression and anxiety disorders through a pathway known as the gut-brain axis. Inflammation may be the mediator between the two, as individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) have reported high levels of inflammation, which the gut microbiota may have the capacity to protect against. This observational study of the gut microbiota of 90 young adults with MDD and 47 healthy controls aimed to determine the relationship between inflammatory gut microbiota and symptoms of depression. The results showed changes to several species of gut microbiota in those with MDD and that the level of change was related to MDD symptom severity. These changes were observed even in those taking psychotropic medications. Changes at the taxonomic level indicated that those with higher symptoms of depression had more pronounced differences compared with healthy controls. Although the observed differences were indicative of an inflammatory microbiome, no changes were observed in blood markers of inflammation between those individuals with MDD and healthy controls. It was concluded that the gut microbiome of individuals with MDD was different from healthy individuals in favour of an inflammatory environment. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to understand that the status of the gut microbiota may be an important measure in individuals with MDD and that a treatment plan to ensure gut health is considered may help with symptoms of depression.
Abstract
We assessed the gut microbiota of 90 American young adults, comparing 43 participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) and 47 healthy controls, and found that the MDD subjects had significantly different gut microbiota compared to the healthy controls at multiple taxonomic levels. At the phylum level, participants with MDD had lower levels of Firmicutes and higher levels of Bacteroidetes, with similar trends in the at the class (Clostridia and Bacteroidia) and order (Clostridiales and Bacteroidales) levels. At the genus level, the MDD group had lower levels of Faecalibacterium and other related members of the family Ruminococcaceae, which was also reduced relative to healthy controls. Additionally, the class Gammaproteobacteria and genus Flavonifractor were enriched in participants with MDD. Accordingly, predicted functional differences between the two groups include a reduced abundance of short-chain fatty acid production pathways in the MDD group. We also demonstrated that the magnitude of taxonomic changes was associated with the severity of depressive symptoms in many cases, and that most changes were present regardless of whether depressed participants were taking psychotropic medications. Overall, our results support a link between MDD and lower levels of anti-inflammatory, butyrate-producing bacteria, and may support a connection between the gut microbiota and the chronic, low-grade inflammation often observed in MDD patients.
3.
Prevalence of Depression Symptoms in US Adults Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Ettman, CK, Abdalla, SM, Cohen, GH, Sampson, L, Vivier, PM, Galea, S
JAMA network open. 2020;3(9):e2019686
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an event that can cause physical, emotional, and psychological harm. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic can itself be considered a traumatic event. The aim of this study was to (a) assess the burden of depression symptoms in the US during COVID-19 using the same measures deployed in representative national surveys before COVID-19 began, and (b) understand the factors associated with depression symptoms during and before COVID-19. This study is a population-representative survey study of US adults. A total of 1441 participants were included in the final sample out of which 619 participants were aged between 18 and 39 years, 723 were men, and 933 were non-Hispanic White. Results showed that: - prevalence of depression symptoms in the US increased more than 3-fold during the COVID-19 pandemic, from 8.5% before COVID-19 to 27.8% during COVID-19. - there was a shift in depression symptoms, with fewer people with no symptoms and more people with more symptoms during COVID-19 than before COVID-19. - lower income groups were at greater risk of depression symptoms than higher income groups. Authors conclude that the potential for the mental health consequences of COVID-19 to be large in scale, to recognize that these effects can be long-lasting, and to consider preventative action to help mitigate its effects.
Abstract
Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the policies to contain it have been a near ubiquitous exposure in the US with unknown effects on depression symptoms. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of and risk factors associated with depression symptoms among US adults during vs before the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationally representative survey study used 2 population-based surveys of US adults aged 18 or older. During COVID-19, estimates were derived from the COVID-19 and Life Stressors Impact on Mental Health and Well-being study, conducted from March 31, 2020, to April 13, 2020. Before COVID-19 estimates were derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted from 2017 to 2018. Data were analyzed from April 15 to 20, 2020. Exposures: The COVID-19 pandemic and outcomes associated with the measures to mitigate it. Main Outcomes and Measures: Depression symptoms, defined using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 cutoff of 10 or higher. Categories of depression symptoms were defined as none (score, 0-4), mild (score, 5-9), moderate (score, 10-14), moderately severe (score, 15-19), and severe (score, ≥20). Results: A total of 1470 participants completed the COVID-19 and Life Stressors Impact on Mental Health and Well-being survey (completion rate, 64.3%), and after removing those with missing data, the final during-COVID-19 sample included 1441 participants (619 participants [43.0%] aged 18-39 years; 723 [50.2%] men; 933 [64.7%] non-Hispanic White). The pre-COVID-19 sample included 5065 participants (1704 participants [37.8%] aged 18-39 years; 2588 [51.4%] women; 1790 [62.9%] non-Hispanic White). Depression symptom prevalence was higher in every category during COVID-19 compared with before (mild: 24.6% [95% CI, 21.8%-27.7%] vs 16.2% [95% CI, 15.1%-17.4%]; moderate: 14.8% [95% CI, 12.6%-17.4%] vs 5.7% [95% CI, 4.8%-6.9%]; moderately severe: 7.9% [95% CI, 6.3%-9.8%] vs 2.1% [95% CI, 1.6%-2.8%]; severe: 5.1% [95% CI, 3.8%-6.9%] vs 0.7% [95% CI, 0.5%-0.9%]). Higher risk of depression symptoms during COVID-19 was associated with having lower income (odds ratio, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.26-4.43]), having less than $5000 in savings (odds ratio, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.02-2.26]), and exposure to more stressors (odds ratio, 3.05 [95% CI, 1.95-4.77]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that prevalence of depression symptoms in the US was more than 3-fold higher during COVID-19 compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic. Individuals with lower social resources, lower economic resources, and greater exposure to stressors (eg, job loss) reported a greater burden of depression symptoms. Post-COVID-19 plans should account for the probable increase in mental illness to come, particularly among at-risk populations.
4.
Inflammation as a predictive biomarker for response to omega-3 fatty acids in major depressive disorder: a proof-of-concept study.
Rapaport, MH, Nierenberg, AA, Schettler, PJ, Kinkead, B, Cardoos, A, Walker, R, Mischoulon, D
Molecular psychiatry. 2016;21(1):71-9
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
This study investigated whether Omega 3 (n-3) fatty acids had a clinical effect on five inflammatory biomarkers on individuals diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Individuals were randomised into 3 groups, each of which took 8 weeks of double blind treatment with either eicosapentaenoic acid enriched n-3 fatty acids (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid enriched n-3 fatty acids (DHA), or placebo. There were no significant differences in the outcomes of the groups. However, it was noted that individuals with higher levels of inflammatory markers who took EPA improved more than those on placebo, and less on DHA than placebo. he larger the number of high inflammatory markers, the wider the gap between the improvements of the EPA versus placebo. Individuals with high hs-CRP, IL-6 or leptin responded less well to placebo than those with lower levels of these biomarkers. EPA was less effective than placebo or DHA if subjects had low levels of all 5 biomarkers. The five biomarkers were strongly influenced by gender and weight. The majority of obese women and men had at least one high marker of inflammation, and many of these had 2 high markers. There was no difference in treatment patterns for men and women. This is consistent with literature that suggests that inflammation is associated with obesity. Results suggest that it is important to look at more than one marker of inflammation, and that subjects with a specific combination inflammation markers were more likely to respond to EPA treatment. The authors concluded that anti-inflammation therapy was only beneficial for those with inflammation related MDD, and not helpful and possibly harmful for those with physiologically derived MDD.
Abstract
This study explores whether inflammatory biomarkers act as moderators of clinical response to omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids in subjects with major depressive disorder (MDD). One hundred fifty-five subjects with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) MDD, a baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) score ⩾ 15 and baseline biomarker data (interleukin (IL)-1ra, IL-6, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), leptin and adiponectin) were randomized between 18 May 2006 and 30 June 2011 to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)-enriched n-3 1060 mg day(-1), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)-enriched n-3 900 mg day(-1) or placebo. Outcomes were determined using mixed model repeated measures analysis for 'high' and 'low' inflammation groups based on individual and combined biomarkers. Results are presented in terms of standardized treatment effect size (ES) for change in HAM-D-17 from baseline to treatment week 8. Although overall treatment group differences were negligible (ES=-0.13 to +0.04), subjects with any 'high' inflammation improved more on EPA than placebo (ES=-0.39) or DHA (ES=-0.60) and less on DHA than placebo (ES=+0.21); furthermore, EPA-placebo separation increased with increasing numbers of markers of high inflammation. Subjects randomized to EPA with 'high' IL-1ra or hs-CRP or low adiponectin ('high' inflammation) had medium ES decreases in HAM-D-17 scores vs subjects 'low' on these biomarkers. Subjects with 'high' hs-CRP, IL-6 or leptin were less placebo-responsive than subjects with low levels of these biomarkers (medium to large ES differences). Employing multiple markers of inflammation facilitated identification of a more homogeneous cohort of subjects with MDD responding to EPA vs placebo in our cohort. Studies are needed to replicate and extend this proof-of-concept work.