BackgroundEtiological research of depression and anxiety disorders has been hampered by diagnostic heterogeneity. In order to address this, researchers have tried to identify more homogeneous patient subgroups. This work has predominantly focused on explaining interpersonal heterogeneity based on clinical features (i.e. symptom profiles). However, to explain interpersonal variations in underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, it might be more effective to take biological heterogeneity as the point of departure when trying to identify subgroups. Therefore, this study aimed to identify data-driven subgroups of patients based on biomarker profiles.MethodsData of patients with a current depressive and/or anxiety disorder came from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety, a large, multi-site naturalistic cohort study (n = 1460). Thirty-six biomarkers (e.g. leptin, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, tryptophan) were measured, as well as sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Latent class analysis of the discretized (lower 10%, middle, upper 10%) biomarkers were used to identify different patient clusters.ResultsThe analyses resulted in three classes, which were primarily characterized by different levels of metabolic health: ‘lean’ (21.6%), ‘average’ (62.2%) and ‘overweight’ (16.2%). Inspection of the classes’ clinical features showed the highest levels of psychopathology, severity and medication use in the overweight class.ConclusionsThe identified classes were strongly tied to general (metabolic) health, and did not reflect any natural cutoffs along the lines of the traditional diagnostic classifications. Our analyses suggested that especially poor metabolic health could be seen as a distal marker for depression and anxiety, suggesting a relationship between the ‘overweight’ subtype and internalizing psychopathology.

Background: Given the strong relationship between depression and anxiety, there is an urge to investigate their shared and specific long-term course determinants. The current study aimed to identify and compare the main determinants of the 9-year trajectories of combined and pure depression and anxiety symptom severity. Methods: Respondents with a 6-month depression and/or anxiety diagnosis (n=1,701) provided baseline data on 152 sociodemographic, clinical and biological variables. Depression and anxiety symptom severity assessed at baseline, 2-, 4-, 6- and 9-year follow-up, were used to identify data-driven course-trajectory subgroups for general psychological distress, pure depression, and pure anxiety severity scores. For each outcome (class-probability), a Superlearner (SL) algorithm identified an optimally weighted (minimum mean squared error) combination of machine-learning prediction algorithms. For each outcome, the top determinants in the SL were identified by determining variable-importance and correlations between each SL-predicted and observed outcome (ρpred) were calculated. Results: Low to high prediction correlations (ρpred: 0.41-0.91, median=0.73) were found. In the SL, important determinants of psychological distress were age, young age of onset, respiratory rate, participation disability, somatic disease, low income, minor depressive disorder and mastery score. For course of pure depression and anxiety symptom severity, similar determinants were found. Specific determinants of pure depression included several types of healthcare-use, and of pure-anxiety course included somatic arousal and psychological distress. Limitations: Limited sample size for machine learning. Conclusions: The determinants of depression- and anxiety-severity course are mostly shared. Domain-specific exceptions are healthcare use for depression and somatic arousal and distress for anxiety-severity course.