RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Comparison of algorithm-based versus single-item diagnostic measures of anxiety and depression disorders in the GLAD and COPING cohorts JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2021.01.08.21249434 DO 10.1101/2021.01.08.21249434 A1 Molly R. Davies A1 Joshua E. J. Buckman A1 Brett N. Adey A1 Chérie Armour A1 John R. Bradley A1 Susannah C. B. Curzons A1 Katrina A. S. Davis A1 Kimberley A. Goldsmith A1 Colette R. Hirsch A1 Matthew Hotopf A1 Christopher Hübel A1 Ian R. Jones A1 Gursharan Kalsi A1 Georgina Krebs A1 Yuhao Lin A1 Ian Marsh A1 Monika McAtarsney-Kovacs A1 Andrew M. McIntosh A1 Dina Monssen A1 Alicia J. Peel A1 Henry C. Rogers A1 Megan Skelton A1 Daniel J. Smith A1 Abigail ter Kuile A1 Katherine N. Thompson A1 David Veale A1 James T. R. Walters A1 Roland Zahn A1 Gerome Breen A1 Thalia C. Eley YR 2021 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/22/2021.01.08.21249434.abstract AB Background Understanding and improving outcomes for people with anxiety or depression often requires large studies. To increase participation and reduce costs, such research is typically unable to utilise “gold-standard” methods to ascertain diagnoses, instead relying on remote, self-report measures.Aims To assess the comparability of remote diagnostic methods for anxiety and depression disorders commonly used in research.Method Participants from the UK-based GLAD and COPING NBR cohorts (N = 58,400) completed an online questionnaire between 2018-2020. Responses to detailed symptom reports were compared to DSM-5 criteria to generate algorithm-based diagnoses of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and agoraphobia. Participants also self-reported any prior diagnoses from health professionals, termed single-item diagnoses. “Any anxiety” included participants with at least one anxiety disorder. Agreement was assessed by calculating accuracy, Cohen’s kappa, McNemar’s chi-squared, sensitivity, and specificity.Results Agreement between diagnoses was moderate for MDD, any anxiety, and GAD, but varied by cohort. Agreement was slight to fair for the phobic disorders. Many participants with single-item GAD did not receive an algorithm-based diagnosis. In contrast, algorithm-based diagnoses of the phobic disorders were more common than single-item diagnoses.Conclusions Agreement for MDD, any anxiety, and GAD was higher for cases in the case-enriched GLAD cohort and for controls in the general population COPING NBR cohort. For anxiety disorders, single-item diagnoses classified most participants as having GAD, whereas algorithm-based diagnoses distributed participants more evenly across the anxiety disorders. Further validation against gold standard measures is required.Competing Interest StatementProf 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 StatementThis 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/V012878/1). 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). Dr Hübel acknowledges funding from Lundbeckfonden (R276-2018-4581).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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 COVID-19 Psychiatry and Neurological Genetics study (COPING NBR) was approved by the South West - Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee on 27th April 2020 (REC reference: 20/SW/0078) 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesCode availability All data cleaning and analyses were conducted using R version 3.5.3 (32), the tidyverse (33), and caret (34) packages. The full code 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. https://github.com/mollyrdavies/GLAD-Diagnostic-algorithms 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)NIHR(National Institute for Health Research)GLAD(Genetic Links to Anxiety and Depression)COPING(COVID-19 Psychiatry and Neurological Genetics)NBR(National Institute for Health Research BioResource)EHR(electronic health records)GP(general practitioner)