Back

The impact of depression diagnosis on diabetes and lifetime hyperglycaemia

Hagenaars, S. P.; Gillett, A. C.; Casanova, F.; Young, K. G.; Green, H. D.; Lewis, C.; Tyrrell, J.

2022-01-13 endocrinology
10.1101/2022.01.13.22269229 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThis study evaluates longitudinal associations between glycaemic control (mean and within-patient variability of glycated haemaglobin (HbA1c) levels) in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and major depressive disorder (MDD), focusing on the timings of these diagnoses. MethodsIn UK Biobank, T2D was defined using self-report and linked health outcome data, then validated using polygenic scores. Repeated HbA1c measurements (mmol/mol) over the 10 years following T2D diagnosis were outcomes in mixed effects models, with T2D disease duration included using restricted cubic splines. Four MDD exposures were considered: MDD diagnosis prior to T2D diagnosis (pre-T2D MDD), time between pre-T2D MDD diagnosis and T2D, new MDD diagnosis during follow-up (post-T2D MDD) and time since post-T2D MDD diagnosis. Models with and without covariate adjustment were considered. ResultsT2D diagnostic criteria were robustly associated with T2D polygenic scores. In 11,837 T2D cases (6.9 year median follow-up), pre-T2D MDD was associated with a 0.92 increase in HbA1c (95% CI: [0.00, 1.84]), but earlier pre-T2D MDD diagnosis correlated with lower HbA1c. These pre-T2D MDD effects became non-significant after covariate adjustment. Post-T2D MDD individuals demonstrated increasing HbA1c with years since MDD diagnosis (/3 = 0.51, 95% CI: [0.17, 0.86]). Retrospectively, looking across all follow-up, within-patient variability in HbA1c was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.13-1.19) times higher in post-T2D MDD. ConclusionsThe timing of MDD diagnosis is important for understanding glycaemic control in T2D. Poorer control was observed in MDD diagnosed post-T2D, highlighting the importance of depression screening in T2D, and closer monitoring for individuals who develop MDD after T2D.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.