Depression, diabetes, comorbid depression and diabetes and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a prospective cohort study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to investigate the risks of all-cause and cause-specific mortality among participants with neither, one or both of diabetes and depression in a large prospective cohort study in the UK. METHODS: Our study population included 499,830 UK Biobank participants without schizophrenia and bipolar disorder at baseline. Type 1 and type 2 diabetes and depression were identified using self-reported diagnoses, prescribed medication and hospital records. Mortality was identified from death records using the primary cause of death to define cause-specific mortality. We performed Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the risk of all-cause mortality and mortality from cancer, circulatory disease and causes of death other than circulatory disease or cancer among participants with either depression (n=41,791) or diabetes (n=22,677) alone and with comorbid diabetes and depression (n=3597) compared with the group with neither condition (n=431,765), adjusting for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, comorbidities and history of CVD or cancer. We also investigated the interaction between diabetes and depression. RESULTS: During a median of 6.8 (IQR 6.1-7.5) years of follow-up, there were 13,724 deaths (cancer, n=7976; circulatory disease, n=2827; other causes, n=2921). Adjusted HRs of all-cause mortality and mortality from cancer, circulatory disease and other causes were highest among people with comorbid depression and diabetes (HRs 2.16 [95% CI 1.94, 2.42]; 1.62 [95% CI 1.35, 1.93]; 2.22 [95% CI 1.80, 2.73]; and 3.60 [95% CI 2.93, 4.42], respectively). The risks of all-cause, cancer and other mortality among those with comorbid depression and diabetes exceeded the sum of the risks due to diabetes and depression alone. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: We confirmed that depression and diabetes individually are associated with an increased mortality risk and also identified that comorbid depression and diabetes have synergistic effects on the risk of all-cause mortality that are largely driven by deaths from cancer and causes other than circulatory disease and cancer.

International comparison of glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes: an update and extension.

AIMS: To update and extend a previous cross-sectional international comparison of glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Data were obtained for 520,392 children and adults with type 1 diabetes from 17 population and five clinic-based data sources in countries or regions between 2016 and 2020. Median HbA1c (IQR) and proportions of individuals with HbA1c < 58 mmol/mol (<7.5%), 58-74 mmol/mol (7.5-8.9%) and ≥75 mmol/mol (≥9.0%) were compared between populations for individuals aged <15, 15-24 and ≥25 years. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of HbA1c < 58 mmol/mol (<7.5%) relative to ≥58 mmol/mol (≥7.5%), stratified and adjusted for sex, age and data source. Where possible, changes in the proportion of individuals in each HbA1c category compared to previous estimates were calculated. RESULTS: Median HbA1c varied from 55 to 79 mmol/mol (7.2 to 9.4%) across data sources and age groups so a pooled estimate was deemed inappropriate. OR (95% CI) for HbA1c < 58 mmol/mol (<7.5%) were 0.91 (0.90-0.92) for women compared to men, 1.68 (1.65-1.71) for people aged <15 years and 0.81 (0.79-0.82) aged15-24 years compared to those aged ≥25 years. Differences between populations persisted after adjusting for sex, age and data source. In general, compared to our previous analysis, the proportion of people with an HbA1c  < 58 mmol/l (<7.5%) increased and proportions of people with HbA1c ≥ 75 mmol/mol (≥9.0%) decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Glycaemic control of type 1 diabetes continues to vary substantially between age groups and data sources. While some improvement over time has been observed, glycaemic control remains sub-optimal for most people with Type 1 diabetes.

Defining remission of type 2 diabetes in research studies: A systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Remission has been identified as a top priority by people with type 2 diabetes. Remission is commonly used as an outcome in research studies; however, a widely accepted definition of remission of type 2 diabetes is lacking. A report on defining remission was published (but not formally endorsed) in Diabetes Care, an American Diabetes Association (ADA) journal. This Diabetes Care report remains widely used. It was the first to suggest 3 components necessary to define the presence of remission: (1) absence of glucose-lowering therapy (GLT); (2) normoglycaemia; and (3) for duration ≥1 year. Our aim is to systematically review how remission of type 2 diabetes has been defined by observational and interventional studies since publication of the 2009 report. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) were searched for studies published from 1 September 2009 to 18 July 2020 involving at least 100 participants with type 2 diabetes in their remission analysis, which examined an outcome of type 2 diabetes remission in adults ≥18 years and which had been published in English since 2009. Remission definitions were extracted and categorised by glucose-lowering therapy, glycaemic thresholds, and duration. A total of 8,966 titles/abstracts were screened, and 178 studies (165 observational and 13 interventional) from 33 countries were included. These contributed 266 definitions, of which 96 were unique. The 2009 report was referenced in 121 (45%) definitions. In total, 247 (93%) definitions required the absence of GLT, and 232 (87%) definitions specified numeric glycaemic thresholds. The most frequently used threshold was HbA1c<42 mmol/mol (6.0%) in 47 (20%) definitions. Time was frequently omitted. In this study, a total of 104 (39%) definitions defined time as a duration. The main limitations of this systematic review lie in the restriction to published studies written in English with sample sizes of over 100. Grey literature was not included in the search. CONCLUSIONS: We found that there is substantial heterogeneity in the definition of type 2 diabetes remission in research studies published since 2009, at least partly reflecting ambiguity in the 2009 report. This complicates interpretation of previous research on remission of type 2 diabetes and the implications for people with type 2 diabetes. Any new consensus definition of remission should include unambiguous glycaemic thresholds and emphasise duration. Until an international consensus is reached, studies describing remission should clearly define all 3 components of remission. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019144619.

The individual and combined associations of depression and socioeconomic status with risk of major cardiovascular events: A prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the individual and combined associations of depression and low socioeconomic status (SES) with risk of major cardiovascular events (MCVE), defined as first-ever fatal or non-fatal stroke or myocardial infarction, in a large prospective cohort study. METHODS: We used data from 466,238 UK Biobank participants, aged 40-69 years without cardiovascular disease, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia at baseline. We performed Cox proportional hazard models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the individual and combined associations of depression and each of educational attainment, area-based deprivation and income with risk of MCVE. We assessed effect modification and explored interaction on the additive and multiplicative scale. RESULTS: Depression, low education, high area-based deprivation and low income were individually associated with increased risks of MCVE (adjusted HR, 95% CI: 1.28, 1.19-1.38; 1.20, 1.14-1.27; 1.17, 1.11-1.23; and 1.22, 1.16-1.29, respectively). Depression was associated with increased risks of MCVE among individuals with high and low SES. Individuals with depression and each of low education, high area-based deprivation and low income were at particularly high risk of MCVE (HR, 95% CI: 1.50, 1.38-1.63; 1.63, 1.46-1.82; 1.31, 1.23-1.40, respectively). There was interaction between depression and area-based deprivation on multiplicative and additive scales but no interaction with education or income. CONCLUSION: Depression was associated with increased risks of MCVE among individuals with high and low SES, with particularly high risks among those living in areas of high deprivation.