Associations between COVID-19 Risk Perceptions and Mental Health, Wellbeing, and Risk Behaviours.

Background: Mental health has worsened, and substance use has increased for some people during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Some cross-sectional studies suggest that higher COVID-19 risk perceptions are related to poorer mental health and greater risk behaviours (e.g., substance use). However, longitudinal and genetic data are needed to help to reduce the likelihood of reverse causality. Methods: We used cross-sectional, longitudinal, and polygenic risk score (PRS; for anxiety, depression, wellbeing) data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). We examined cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal associations between COVID-19 risk perceptions (i.e., cognitive, affective, self, other, and a combined 'holistic' measure) and mental health (i.e., anxiety, depression), wellbeing, and risk behaviours. Pandemic (April-July 2020) and pre-pandemic (2003-2017) data (ns = 233-5,115) were included. Results: Higher COVID-19 risk perceptions (holistic) were associated with anxiety (OR 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20 to 3.52), depression (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.18), low wellbeing (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.13), and increased alcohol use (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.72). Higher COVID-19 risk perceptions were also associated with self-isolating given a suspected COVID-19 infection (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.68), and less face-to-face contact (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98) and physical contact (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00). Pre-pandemic anxiety (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.09) and low wellbeing (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.74) were associated with higher COVID-19 risk perceptions. The depression PRS (b 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.40) and wellbeing PRS (b -0.29, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.09) were associated with higher and lower COVID-19 risk perceptions, respectively. Conclusions: Poorer mental health and wellbeing are associated with higher COVID-19 risk perceptions, and longitudinal and genetic data suggest that they may play a causal role in COVID-19 risk perceptions.

Omega-3 fatty acids for depression in adults.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly debilitating, difficult to treat, has a high rate of recurrence, and negatively impacts the individual and society as a whole. One potential treatment for MDD is n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFAs), also known as omega-3 oils, naturally found in fatty fish, some other seafood, and some nuts and seeds. Various lines of evidence suggest a role for n-3PUFAs in MDD, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Reviews and meta-analyses clearly demonstrate heterogeneity between studies. Investigations of heterogeneity suggest different effects of n-3PUFAs, depending on the severity of depressive symptoms, where no effects of n-3PUFAs are found in studies of individuals with mild depressive symptomology, but possible benefit may be suggested in studies of individuals with more severe depressive symptomology. Hence it is important to establish their effectiveness in treating MDD. This review updates and incorporates an earlier review with the same research objective (Appleton 2015). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (also known as omega-3 fatty acids) versus a comparator (e.g. placebo, antidepressant treatment, standard care, no treatment, wait-list control) for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with trial registries and grey literature sources (to 9 January 2021). We checked reference lists and contacted authors of included studies for additional information when necessary. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies in the review if they: used a randomised controlled trial design; provided n-3PUFAs as an intervention; used a comparator; measured depressive symptomology as an outcome; and were conducted in adults with MDD. Primary outcomes were depressive symptomology (continuous data collected using a validated rating scale) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptomology (dichotomous data on remission and response), quality of life, and non-completion of studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: The review includes 35 relevant studies: 34 studies involving a total of 1924 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to placebo, and one study involving 40 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to antidepressant treatment. For the placebo comparison, n-3PUFA supplementation resulted in a small to modest benefit for depressive symptomology, compared to placebo: standardised mean difference (SMD) (random-effects model) -0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.16; 33 studies, 1848 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but this effect is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. An SMD of 0.40 represents a difference between groups in scores on the HDRS (17-item) of approximately 2.5 points (95% CI 1.0 to 4.0), where the minimal clinically important change score on this scale is 3.0 points. The confidence intervals include both a possible clinically important effect and a possible negligible effect, and there is considerable heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity analyses, funnel plot inspection and comparison of our results with those of large well-conducted trials also suggest that this effect estimate may be biased towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs. Although the numbers of individuals experiencing adverse events were similar in intervention and placebo groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.64; 24 studies, 1503 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the confidence intervals include a small decrease to a modest increase in adverse events with n-3PUFAs. There was no evidence for a difference between n-3PUFA and placebo groups in remission rates (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.72; 8 studies, 609 participants, low-certainty evidence), response rates (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.79; 17 studies, 794 participants; low-certainty evidence), quality of life (SMD -0.38 (95% CI -0.82 to 0.06), 12 studies, 476 participants, very low-certainty evidence), or trial non-completion (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22; 29 studies, 1777 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence on which these results are based was also very limited, highly heterogeneous, and potentially biased. Only one study, involving 40 participants, was available for the antidepressant comparison. This study found no differences between treatment with n-3PUFAs and treatment with antidepressants in depressive symptomology (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -5.88 to 4.48), rates of response to treatment (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.31), or trial non-completion (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.71). Confidence intervals are however very wide in all analyses, and do not rule out important beneficial or detrimental effects of n-3PUFAs compared to antidepressants. Adverse events were not reported in a manner suitable for analysis, and rates of depression remission and quality of life were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, we do not have sufficient high-certainty evidence to determine the effects of n-3PUFAs as a treatment for MDD. Our primary analyses may suggest a small-to-modest, non-clinically beneficial effect of n-3PUFAs on depressive symptomology compared to placebo; however the estimate is imprecise, and we judged the certainty of the evidence on which this result is based to be low to very low. Our data may also suggest similar rates of adverse events and trial non-completion in n-3PUFA and placebo groups, but again our estimates are very imprecise. Effects of n-3PUFAs compared to antidepressants are very imprecise and uncertain. More complete evidence is required for both the potential positive and negative effects of n-3PUFAs for MDD.

Investigating causality between liability to ADHD and substance use, and liability to substance use and ADHD risk, using Mendelian randomization.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has consistently been associated with substance use, but the nature of this association is not fully understood. To inform intervention development and public health messages, a vital question is whether there are causal pathways from ADHD to substance use and/or vice versa. We applied bidirectional Mendelian randomization, using summary-level data from the largest available genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on ADHD, smoking (initiation, cigarettes per day, cessation, and a compound measure of lifetime smoking), alcohol use (drinks per week, alcohol problems, and alcohol dependence), cannabis use (initiation), and coffee consumption (cups per day). Genetic variants robustly associated with the "exposure" were selected as instruments and identified in the "outcome" GWAS. Effect estimates from individual genetic variants were combined with inverse-variance weighted regression and five sensitivity analyses (weighted median, weighted mode, MR-Egger, generalized summary data-based MR, and Steiger filtering). We found evidence that liability to ADHD increases likelihood of smoking initiation and heaviness of smoking among smokers, decreases likelihood of smoking cessation, and increases likelihood of cannabis initiation. There was weak evidence that liability to ADHD increases alcohol dependence risk but not drinks per week or alcohol problems. In the other direction, there was weak evidence that smoking initiation increases ADHD risk, but follow-up analyses suggested a high probability of horizontal pleiotropy. There was no clear evidence of causal pathways between ADHD and coffee consumption. Our findings corroborate epidemiological evidence, suggesting causal pathways from liability to ADHD to smoking, cannabis use, and, tentatively, alcohol dependence. Further work is needed to explore the exact mechanisms mediating these causal effects.

ω-3 Fatty acids for major depressive disorder in adults: an abridged Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFAs; also known as ω-3 fatty acids) compared with comparator for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Registers (CCDANCTR) and International Trial Registries searched to May 2015. CINAHL searched to September 2013. INCLUSION CRITERIA: a randomised controlled trial (RCT); that provided n-3PUFAs as an intervention; used a comparator; measured depressive symptomology as an outcome; and was conducted in adults with MDD. OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were depressive symptomology and adverse events. RESULTS: 20 trials encompassing 26 relevant studies were found. For n-3PUFAs versus placebo, n-3PUFA supplementation resulted in a small-to-modest benefit for depressive symptomology: SMD=-0.32 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.12; 25 studies, 1373 participants, very low-quality evidence), but this effect is unlikely to be clinically meaningful, is very imprecise and, based on funnel plot inspection, sensitivity analyses and comparison with large well-conducted trials, is likely to be biased. Considerable evidence of heterogeneity between studies was also found, and was not explained by subgroup or sensitivity analyses. Numbers of individuals experiencing adverse events were similar in intervention and placebo groups (OR=1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.62; 19 studies, 1207 participants; very low-quality evidence). For n-3PUFAs versus antidepressants, no differences were found between treatments in depressive symptomology (MD=-0.70 (95% CI -5.88 to 4.48); 1 study, 40 participants, very low-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: At present, we do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of n-3PUFAs as a treatment for MDD. Further research in the form of adequately powered RCTs is needed.

Omega-3 fatty acids for depression in adults.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly debilitating, difficult to treat, has a high rate of recurrence, and negatively impacts the individual and society as a whole. One emerging potential treatment for MDD is n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFAs), also known as omega-3 oils, naturally found in fatty fish, some other seafood, and some nuts and seeds. Various lines of evidence suggest a role for n-3PUFAs in MDD, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Reviews and meta-analyses clearly demonstrate heterogeneity between studies. Investigations of heterogeneity suggest differential effects of n-3PUFAs, depending on severity of depressive symptoms, where no effects of n-3PUFAs are found in studies of individuals with mild depressive symptomology, but possible benefit may be suggested in studies of individuals with more severe depressive symptomology. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (also known as omega-3 fatty acids) versus a comparator (e.g. placebo, anti-depressant treatment, standard care, no treatment, wait-list control) for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Registers (CCDANCTR) and International Trial Registries over all years to May 2015. We searched the database CINAHL over all years of records to September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies in the review if they: were a randomised controlled trial; provided n-3PUFAs as an intervention; used a comparator; measured depressive symptomology as an outcome; and were conducted in adults with MDD. Primary outcomes were depressive symptomology (continuous data collected using a validated rating scale) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptomology (dichotomous data on remission and response), quality of life, and failure to complete studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We found 26 relevant studies: 25 studies involving a total of 1438 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to placebo, and one study involving 40 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to antidepressant treatment.For the placebo comparison, n-3PUFA supplementation results in a small to modest benefit for depressive symptomology, compared to placebo: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to -0.52; 25 studies, 1373 participants, very low quality evidence), but this effect is unlikely to be clinically meaningful (an SMD of 0.32 represents a difference between groups in scores on the HDRS (17-item) of approximately 2.2 points (95% CI 0.8 to 3.6)). The confidence intervals include both a possible clinically important effect and a possible negligible effect, and there is considerable heterogeneity between the studies. Although the numbers of individuals experiencing adverse events were similar in intervention and placebo groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.62; 19 studies, 1207 participants; very low-quality evidence), the confidence intervals include a significant increase in adverse events with n-3PUFAs as well as a small possible decrease. Rates of remission and response, quality of life, and rates of failure to complete studies were also similar between groups, but confidence intervals are again wide.The evidence on which these results are based is very limited. All studies contributing to our analyses were of direct relevance to our research question, but we rated the quality of the evidence for all outcomes as low to very low. The number of studies and number of participants contributing to all analyses were low, and the majority of studies were small and judged to be at high risk of bias on several measures. Our analyses were also likely to be highly influenced by three large trials. Although we judge these trials to be at low risk of bias, they contribute 26.9% to 82% of data. Our effect size estimates are also imprecise. Funnel plot asymmetry and sensitivity analyses (using fixed-effect models, and only studies judged to be at low risk of selection bias, performance bias or attrition bias) also suggest a likely bias towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs. There was substantial heterogeneity in analyses of our primary outcome of depressive symptomology. This heterogeneity was not explained by the presence or absence of comorbidities or by the presence or absence of adjunctive therapy.Only one study was available for the antidepressant comparison, involving 40 participants. This study found no differences between treatment with n-3PUFAs and treatment with antidepressants in depressive symptomology (mean difference (MD) -0.70 (95% CI -5.88 to 4.48)), rates of response to treatment or failure to complete. Adverse events were not reported in a manner suitable for analysis, and rates of depression remission and quality of life were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, we do not have sufficient high quality evidence to determine the effects of n-3PUFAs as a treatment for MDD. Our primary analyses suggest a small-to-modest, non-clinically beneficial effect of n-3PUFAs on depressive symptomology compared to placebo; however the estimate is imprecise, and we judged the quality of the evidence on which this result is based to be low/very low. Sensitivity analyses, funnel plot inspection and comparison of our results with those of large well-conducted trials also suggest that this effect estimate is likely to be biased towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs, and that the true effect is likely to be smaller. Our data, however, also suggest similar rates of adverse events and numbers failing to complete trials in n-3PUFA and placebo groups, but again our estimates are very imprecise. The one study that directly compares n-3PUFAs and antidepressants in our review finds comparable benefit. More evidence, and more complete evidence, are required, particularly regarding both the potential positive and negative effects of n-3PUFAs for MDD.

Perinatal depression and omega-3 fatty acids: a Mendelian randomisation study.

BACKGROUND: There have been numerous studies investigating the association between omega-3 fatty acids (FAs) and depression, with mixed findings. We propose an approach which is largely free from issues such as confounding or reverse causality, to investigate this relationship using observational data from a pregnancy cohort. METHODS: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) cohort collected information on FA levels from antenatal blood samples and depressive symptoms at several time points during pregnancy and the postnatal period. Conventional epidemiological analyses were used in addition to a Mendelian randomisation (MR) approach to investigate the association between levels of two omega-3 FAs (docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)) and perinatal onset depression, antenatal depression (AND) and postnatal depression (PND). RESULTS: Weak evidence of a positive association with both EPA (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 0.99-1.15) and DHA (OR=1.08; 95% CI: 0.98-1.19) with perinatal onset depression was found using a multivariable logistic regression adjusting for social class and maternal age. However, the strength of association was found to attenuate when using an MR analysis to investigate DHA. LIMITATIONS: Pleiotropy is a potential limitation in MR analyses; we assume that the genetic variants included in the instrumental variable are associated only with our trait of interest (FAs) and thus cannot influence the outcome via any other pathway. CONCLUSIONS: We found weak evidence of a positive association between omega-3 FAs and perinatal onset depression. However, without confirmation from the MR analysis, we are unable to draw conclusions regarding causality.