Women who wake up early ‘less likely to get depressed’

Women who wake up early 'less likely to get depressed'

Women who wake up early ‘less likely to get depressed’

“Women who wake up early as they get older are less likely to develop depression than those who love a lie-in,” the Mail Online reports.

US researchers wanted to see if women’s chronotype – whether they were “early birds” or “night owls” – had an impact on their risk of depression.

The researchers looked at data from a large study in the US assessing the health of female nurses for nearly 30 years.

In a one-off question in 2009, they were asked whether they were “morning” or “evening” types. More than 32,000 women who had not had depression prior to this were then followed for 4 years. During this time there were 2,581 new cases of depression. Definite morning types had slightly lower risk of depression than people who said they were neither strong morning or evening types. There was no particular pattern identified for evening types.

This study provides weak evidence that morning types might be slightly better off than others when it comes to avoiding depression. But bear in mind the results were based on a very specific group of people, and it’s not possible to say with any certainty that depression risk is influenced by sleep habits.

Often, altered sleep patterns can be triggered by depression, so a clear cause and effect relationship shouldn’t be presumed.

You can read more about developing healthy sleep habits and see what support is available for people with depression.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the University of Colorado, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard, and the University of Vienna. It was funded by the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, and The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The ongoing work of the Nurses’ Health Study II is funded by the US National Cancer Institute.

The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical Journal of Psychiatry Research.

The Mail Online’s article started off by suggesting that morning types were better off than evening types, when actually the analysis in the study compared morning types to “intermediate types” who were neither strong morning or evening types. It also suggested that getting more daylight was the solution, though this particular study did not look at daylight exposure of the participants. Neither The Independent nor the Mail Online really picked up on any of the limitations of the study.

What kind of research was this?

This was a cohort study, where the researchers wanted to look at what is known as chronotype. It is believed that genetic variations between people can contribute to differences in how the circadian rhythms (body clock) behaves, and that disturbances to those rhythms can have an impact on people’s mood and mental wellbeing.

The researchers involved in this study asked a group of people to self-define as morning or evening people (or neither) and then followed them up over time to see if any developed depression.

Cohort studies are good for answering questions about whether diseases occur in people over a period of time. This can be useful if you are trying to find out whether one thing (in this case, sleep patterns) might lead to a health problem occurring later down the line. However, it’s not always possible to establish whether one thing directly causes the other. Also, it is important to look at whether the people in the cohort are representative of the general population before drawing any general conclusions.

What did the research involve?

The researchers recruited women who were already taking part in a large cohort study called the Nurses’ Health Study II. This cohort has been running since 1989 and originally involved 116,434 female nurses in the US, who were sent questionnaires about various aspects of health every 2 years. This included questions on alcohol consumption, smoking, body weight, physical activity, diet, and menopausal status.

Some questions were only asked once or occasionally. In the 2009 questionnaire, the women were asked about their chronotype, with the options as follows:

definitely a morning type

rather more a morning than an evening type or rather more an evening than a morning type (defined in the analysis as intermediate types)

definitely an evening type

neither

If women did not answer this question, they were not included in the study.

Since 1997 women were regularly asked whether they had been prescribed antidepressants (specifically, a type called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)) or given a diagnosis of depression by a healthcare professional. Women who had depression before 2009 were excluded from the analysis. The final study population included 32,470 women.

In analysing links the researchers took account of various health, lifestyle and socioeconomic factors. They also carried out some additional analyses that accounted for sleep duration and work shift patterns.

What were the basic results?

During the 4-year follow-up, 2,581 women reported developing depression. After adjusting for confounders, women who were morning people were very slightly less likely to develop depression than intermediate types (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 0.96).

There was a general trend suggesting that women who were evening types could be at higher risk of depression, but there was too much uncertainty around this finding. The researchers only directly compared evening types with intermediate types and this showed no difference in risk (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.20).

These results were consistent when the researchers limited the analysis to women who usually slept 7 to 8 hours per night, and also when they only looked at women who never did shift work.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers noted that their results were most relevant to the understanding of mid- to later-life depression independent of other health and lifestyle factors.

They noted that their study added to the existing literature and improved on it by looking at people over a period of time, rather than assessing them just once.

They discussed the limitations of their study and suggest further study is required to confirm the findings and look at the possible influence of other factors.

Conclusion

This study provides a small amount of evidence that morning types might be at slightly lower risk of depression, but also has a lot of limitations.

The researchers excluded women who had a previous history of depression. This was helpful to try and better establish cause and effect links and demonstrate a relationship between sleep pattern and risk of depression. However, it can’t prove that certain sleep patterns are a direct cause of depression.

Sleep patterns were only assessed once in 2009. A disturbed sleep pattern is in itself a symptom of depression. Researchers had no idea when in the following 4 years depression developed, and it could possibly be that sleeping later was a symptom of an undiagnosed case of depression developing.

The population selected for the study means that the findings might only apply to women who developed depression in middle age. We don’t know whether the results would be the same in younger women, in men, or in children. As a specific group of nurses this means they may also have particular health and lifestyle characteristics, meaning the results aren’t even applicable to all middle-aged women.

The follow-up period of this study was also quite short (4 years). Over the course of a lifetime, many people do experience difficulties with their mental health. So by only looking at people who had not had depression for many years, and then following them for a relatively short period, we might not see a true relationship between sleep patterns and depression.

If you have been persistently feeling down or hopeless during the past 2 weeks and not taking any pleasure in things you used to enjoy, you may be depressed. Ask your GP for advice.

Analysis by Bazian
Edited by NHS Choices

What is Major Depressive Disorder? From Kati Morton

What is Major Depressive Disorder?

What is Major Depressive Disorder?


Today I talk about what MDD is and how it is diagnosed.
The DSM states that you must have depressed mood and anhedonia in order for MDD to even be considered. Then you must have at least 5 of the following for a 2 week period.
1. Depressed mood most of the day
2. Diminished pleasure or interest
3. Increased or decreased appetite
4. Increased or decreased sleep
5. Psychomoto agitation or retardation
6. Fatigue everyday

7. Feeling worthless or having inappropriate guilt
8. Diminished ability to think or concentrate
9. Recurrent thoughts of death
If you find yourself having of these symptoms please reach out for help! The sooner the better, and there are so many people out there willing to listen and help, so make that call and set up that appointment!!

What are the warning signs of depression?

Depression affects up to 1 in 5 people, and it can negatively affect all areas of life. Learn the signs to watch out for, lifestyle changes to make to help relieve depression, and popular natural remedies to control the symptoms of depression.

Warning Signs of Depression

From Visually.

The reality of teen depression

Teen depression is a mental and emotional disorder that can cause persistent feelings of sadness and lack of interest in school and other activities, which can affect your teens daily thoughts and behavior. Knowing the signs and possible causes of teen depression can prepare you to help your teen as they battle this mental illness.

Teens have a lot going on their lives that can play a role in developing teen depression including peer pressure, academic expectations and changing bodies.

The major depressive disorder is the leading cause of disability among Americans age 15 to 44 (addressing teen depression early can help stop it from becoming an issue).

The infographic explores the long-term effects of untreated teen depression and provides tips for talking with a depressed teen.

The Reality of Teen Depression

Big new study confirms antidepressants work better than placebo

Antidepressants

Antidepressants

“Antidepressants are highly effective and should be prescribed to millions more people with mental health problems, researchers declared last night,” reports the Mail Online. Researchers conducted the largest-ever review of trials of antidepressants, finding that all 21 studied worked better than a placebo (dummy) drug.

However, that does not mean they are “highly effective” – it means people are more likely to see their symptoms improve if they take an antidepressant than if they take a placebo. The researchers said the effects of the drugs were “mostly modest”.

The researchers also looked at how antidepressants compared to each other, both in effectiveness and in terms of tolerability. Some people taking antidepressants report unpleasant side effects, especially when they first start taking them.

Knowing which drugs people are more likely to stop taking can help doctors and patients decide which to try first. The study lists 5 drugs that were more effective and better tolerated than others.

There’s been a lot of discussion about whether antidepressants work. One previous summary of research suggested they work no better than placebo. This review gathered a lot of new evidence, including some previously unpublished trials, to give us the best overview of the current state of research.

Antidepressants are just one of several evidence-based treatments for depression. Cognitive behavioural therapy, rather than antidepressants, remains the first-choice treatment for people with mild symptoms. Find out more about treatments for depression.

Where did the story come from?

The researchers who carried out the study were from the University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital and the University of Bristol in the UK, the University of Bern in Switzerland, Paris Descartes University in France, the Universität München in Germany, and the VA Portland Health Care System and Stanford University in the US.

The study was widely reported in the UK media. Many reports led on comments made by the researchers in a press conference, that antidepressants should be prescribed more widely to people with depression. That was not explored in the study itself.

The study results were reported accurately, although not all reports made clear some of the study’s limitations, such as the 8-week time limit on studies, the variable quality of the trials included, or the lack of information about which individuals might benefit from which treatments.

What kind of research was this?

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind randomised controlled trials assessing antidepressants for adults with depression. This is usually the best way to assess the available medical research or evidence on a topic, but a meta-analysis is only as good as the trials that it includes.

It is also difficult when the review looks at a varied mix of patients (who may have had any severity of symptoms, and single or recurrent episodes) to know where people are in the process of care. For instance it’s hard to know whether psychological talking therapies may be suitable instead of, or in combination with antidepressants, for some people.

What did the research involve?

Researchers searched for double-blind randomised controlled trials of antidepressants for depression in adults, which compared an antidepressant either to placebo or another antidepressant. They focused on the “second generation” antidepressants, of which fluoxetine (Prozac) is the best known. They searched for trials up to January 2016.

As well as the usual database searches for published trials, the researchers went to some lengths to find unpublished data, for example checking websites of pharmaceutical companies, trial registers and licensing authorities, and requesting unpublished information from all pharmaceutical companies marketing antidepressants, to ensure nothing was missed.

They looked for data after 8 weeks of taking the antidepressants or placebo, for 2 main outcomes:

effectiveness (defined as the number of patients who had a 50% or more reduction in depression symptoms)

acceptability (defined as the number of patients who stopped taking the treatment for any reason)

The researchers then calculated the relative effectiveness and acceptability of each drug compared to placebo, and each drug compared to each other drug. They also looked at a range of other outcomes, including depression score at the end of the study, and patients no longer depressed at the end of the study. They also assessed the studies for risk of bias.

What were the basic results?

The researchers found 522 studies covering 116,477 patients in total. This included 101 previously unpublished studies. Unsurprisingly, 78% of the studies were funded by drug manufacturers.

The results showed:

All 21 antidepressants included were more likely to work than placebo. However, effectiveness varied between antidepressants.

Amitriptyline, an older type of tricyclic antidepressant, was more than twice as likely to work as placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.89 to 2.41).

Reboxetine (a type of drug called a selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, SNRI) was 37% more likely to work than placebo (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63).

For most antidepressants, people were equally likely to stop taking the antidepressant as the placebo. However, more people stopped taking clomipramine (another tricyclic) than placebo (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.68) and fewer people stopped taking agomelatine (an “atypical” antidepressant) or fluoxetine (a common selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)) than placebo (OR for agomelatine 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; OR for fluoxetine 0.88, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.96).

In comparisons between the drugs, researchers found 5 were more effective and had a lower drop-out rate than other antidepressants:

escitalopram (SSRI)

paroxetine (SSRI)

sertraline (SSRI)

agomelatine (atypical)

mirtazapine (atypical)

The comparison found these drugs were generally less effective and less well-tolerated:

reboxetine (atypical)

trazodone (similar to a tricyclic)

fluvoxamine (SSRI)

The quality of the studies also varied. The researchers said there was “moderate” [quality] evidence for the effectivness and tolerance of agomelatine, escitalopram, citalopram and mirtazapine, but “low to very low” evidence for vortioxetine, clomipramine, and amitriptyline.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers said their study represented “the most comprehensive currently available evidence base to guide the initial choice about pharmacological treatment for acute major depressive disorder in adults.”

They warn that their findings “comparing the merits of one antidepressant with another must be tempered by the potential limitations of the methodology,” and must take account of differences between patients and their circumstances.

However, they conclude: “We hope that these results will assist in shared decision making between patients, carers and their clinicians.”

Conclusion

This study adds a great deal of new and useful information to our understanding of the effects of antidepressants when used to treat depression in adults. The overall message is encouraging: these drugs are more effective than a placebo, and most of them are at least as tolerable as a placebo.

This was a very large, well-conducted review. However, it has a number of limitations:

The results are reported after 8 weeks of treatment, so we don’t know if they apply to long-term use of antidepressants.

The trials varied in quality, and some were at a moderate risk of bias.

The review did not include information about specific side effects of treatment or withdrawal symptoms.

The review was not able to assess individual data (such as age, sex, length of depression) that might affect which patients respond better to, or are suitable for which treatments.

Related to this, it shouldn’t be concluded that antidepressants are “better than” or should be used instead of talking treatments like cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). We don’t know where these patients were in the pathway of care, or whether CBT may have been suitable as an initial therapy. The review did not look for studies on how the drugs perform in combination with talking treatments or in direct comparison to them.

It’s important to understand that even if trial results show a drug works better than placebo, it doesn’t mean an individual will necessarily benefit. If you are taking an antidepressant and feel that it is working, this study is reassuring. If you have been taking an antidepressant for 4 weeks or more and it does not seem to be helping, talk to your doctor. Another antidepressant, or a different type of treatment, may work better for you.

Antidepressants work well for some people, but other types of treatment such as talking therapies are available and may be more appropriate for other people. Find out more about treatments for depression.