Abstract
Background Research to understand the complex aetiology of depressive and anxiety disorders often requires large sample sizes, but this comes at a cost. Large-scale studies are typically unable to utilise “gold standard” phenotyping methods, instead relying on remote, self-report measures to ascertain phenotypes.
Aims To assess the comparability of two commonly used phenotyping methods for depression and anxiety disorders.
Method Participants from the Genetic Links to Anxiety and Depression (GLAD) Study (N = 37,419) completed an online questionnaire including detailed symptom reports. They received a lifetime algorithm-based diagnosis based on DSM-5 criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and agoraphobia. Any anxiety disorder included participants with at least one anxiety disorder. Participants also responded to single-item questions asking whether they had ever been diagnosed with these disorders by health professionals.
Results Agreement for algorithm-based and single-item diagnoses was high for MDD and any anxiety disorder but low for the individual anxiety disorders. For GAD, many participants with a single-item diagnosis did not receive an algorithm-based diagnosis. In contrast, algorithm-based diagnoses of the other anxiety disorders were more common than the single-item diagnoses.
Conclusions The two phenotyping methods were comparable for MDD and any anxiety disorder cases. However, frequencies of specific anxiety disorders varied depending on the method. Single-item diagnoses classified most participants as having GAD whereas algorithm-based diagnoses were more evenly distributed across the anxiety disorders. Future investigations of specific anxiety disorders should use algorithm-based or other robust phenotyping methods.
Competing Interest Statement
Prof Breen has received honoraria, research or conference grants and consulting fees from Illumina, Otsuka, and COMPASS Pathfinder Ltd. Prof Hotopf is principal investigator of the RADAR-CNS consortium, an IMI public private partnership, and as such receives research funding from Janssen, UCB, Biogen, Lundbeck and MSD. Prof McIntosh has received research support from Eli Lilly, Janssen, and the Sackler Foundation, and has also received speaker fees from Illumina and Janssen. Prof Walters has received grant funding from Takeda for work unrelated to the GLAD Study. Dr Zahn is a private psychiatrist service provider and co-investigator on a Livanova-funded observational study. He has received honoraria for talks at medical symposia sponsored by Lundbeck as well as Janssen. He collaborates with EMOTRA, EMIS PLC and Alloc Modulo. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) BioResource [RG94028, RG85445], NIHR Biomedical Research Centre [IS-BRC-1215-20018], HSC R&D Division, Public Health Agency [COM/5516/18], MRC Mental Health Data Pathfinder Award (MC_PC_17,217), and the National Centre for Mental Health funding through Health and Care Research Wales. Prof Eley and Dr Breen are part-funded by a program grant from the UK Medical Research Council (MR/M021475/1). Dr Buckman was supported by a Clinical Research Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (201292/Z/16/Z). Dr. Goldsmith receives funding from NIHR, MRC, NIH, and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF). Dr Krebs is funded by a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the Medical Research Council (MR/N001400/1).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The GLAD Study was approved by the London - Fulham Research Ethics Committee on 21st August 2018 (REC reference: 18/LO/1218) following a full review by the committee. The NIHR BioResource has been approved as a Research Tissue Bank by the East of England - Cambridge Central Committee (REC reference: 17/EE/0025).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Code availability R scripts for the diagnostic algorithms and analyses included in this paper are available at https://github.com/mollyrdavies/GLAD-Diagnostic-algorithms. Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, TCE. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions outlined in the study protocol and specified to participants during the consent process.
Abbreviations
- CIDI
- Composite International Diagnostic Interview
- CIDI-SF
- Composite International Diagnostic Interview - short form
- SCID
- Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5
- MDD
- major depressive disorder
- GAD
- generalised anxiety disorder
- DSM-5
- Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5
- GLAD
- Genetic Links to Anxiety and Depression
- EHR
- electronic health records
- GP
- general practitioner
