Back

Examining the independent roles of cannabis use and tobacco use in depression risk: a multivariable Mendelian randomisation study

Burke, C.; Freeman, T. P.; Sallis, H.; Wootton, R. E.; Taylor, G. M.

2024-07-17 epidemiology
10.1101/2024.07.17.24310564 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCannabis and tobacco use are consistently associated with major depressive disorder (MDD) in conventional observational studies. However, these substances are often co-used, and the independent causal role of cannabis use in risk of MDD remains unclear. MethodsUnivariable and multivariable MR (MVMR) were used to explore the total and independent causal effects of genetic liability to tobacco use and cannabis use on MDD. Our primary estimator was the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method, with other methods as sensitivity analyses. For the exposures, we used genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics among European ancestry individuals for several tobacco use (i.e., smoking initiation, smoking continuation, smoking heaviness) and cannabis use (i.e., cannabis initiation, cannabis use disorder [CUD]) phenotypes. For the outcome, a GWAS of MDD was conducted using individual-level data from UK Biobank. ResultsUnivariable MR indicated a causal effect of smoking initiation on MDD (odds ratio [OR]IVW = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27 - 1.42), with consistent but weaker evidence for smoking continuation (ORIVW = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.93 - 1.37) and smoking heaviness (ORIVW = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.99 - 1.33). There was no clear evidence for a causal effect of cannabis initiation on MDD (ORIVW = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.91- 1.11). Univariable MR indicated some evidence for a causal effect of CUD on MDD (ORIVW = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.04 - 1.25), which attenuated to the null when adjusting for liability to smoking initiation (ORMVMR-IVW = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.97 - 1.08). ConclusionsThis study provides limited evidence for an independent causal effect of cannabis use on MDD, and stronger evidence for an independent causal effect of tobacco use on MDD. Analyses were limited by low power, and future research should triangulate these findings with results from high-quality observational studies.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.3%
2
Addiction
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
3
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
4
JAMA Psychiatry
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
5
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.8%
7
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
8
American Journal of Psychiatry
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
9
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
10
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
11
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.7%
13
Molecular Psychiatry
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
15
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 64%
1.3%
16
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
18
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
19
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
105 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
Journal of Psychiatric Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
22
Epidemiology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
23
Psychopharmacology
59 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
24
European Neuropsychopharmacology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
25
Biological Psychiatry
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
27
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%