Major depressive disorder (MDD) is among the diseases with the greatest public health impact worldwide¹ and confers an approximately 50% elevated mortality of various causes.² Obesity represents another major burden for public health and is also associated with elevated mortality.³ Moreover, both depression and obesity are associated with various chronic diseases such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, cancer, and respiratory and osteoarticular diseases.^4-9 Obesity could also be one explanation for the approximately doubled risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD)¹⁰ and cerebrovascular diseases and the excess mortality among depressed individuals.² Accordingly, gaining a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the association between MDD and obesity is of high clinical and scientific relevance.

There is contradictory information regarding the prognostic importance of adipocytokines, hepatic and inflammatory biomarkers on the incidence of type 2 diabetes. The objective was to assess the prognostic relevance of adipocytokine and inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein – CRP; interleukin-1beta – IL-1β; interleukin-6– IL-6; tumour necrosis factor-α – TNF-α; leptin and adiponectin) and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (γGT) on the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Prospective, population-based study including 3,842 non-diabetic participants (43.3% men, age range 35 to 75 years), followed for an average of 5.5 years (2003–2008). The endpoint was the occurrence of type 2 diabetes. 208 participants (5.4%, 66 women) developed type 2 diabetes during follow-up. On univariate analysis, participants who developed type 2 diabetes had significantly higher baseline levels of IL-6, CRP, leptin and γGT, and lower levels of adiponectin than participants who remained free of type 2 diabetes. After adjusting for a validated type 2 diabetes risk score, only the associations with adiponectin: Odds Ratio and (95% confidence interval): 0.97 (0.64–1.47), 0.84 (0.55–1.30) and 0.64 (0.40–1.03) for the second, third and forth gender-specific quartiles respectively, remained significant (P-value for trend = 0.05). Adding each marker to a validated type 2 diabetes risk score (including age, family history of type 2 diabetes, height, waist circumference, resting heart rate, presence of hypertension, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting glucose and serum uric acid) did not improve the area under the ROC or the net reclassification index; similar findings were obtained when the markers were combined, when the markers were used as continuous (log-transformed) variables or when gender-specific quartiles were used. Decreased adiponectin levels are associated with an increased risk for incident type 2 diabetes, but they seem to add little information regarding the risk of developing type 2 diabetes to a validated risk score.

Background.: The pandemic caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has forced governments to implement strict social mitigation strategies to reduce the morbidity and mortality from acute infections. These strategies, however, carry a significant risk for mental health, which can lead to increased short-term and long-term mortality and is currently not included in modeling the impact of the pandemic. Methods.: We used years of life lost (YLL) as the main outcome measure, applied to Switzerland as an example. We focused on suicide, depression, alcohol use disorder, childhood trauma due to domestic violence, changes in marital status, and social isolation, as these are known to increase YLL in the context of imposed restriction in social contact and freedom of movement. We stipulated a minimum duration of mitigation of 3 months based on current public health plans. Results.: The study projects that the average person would suffer 0.205 YLL due to psychosocial consequence of COVID-19 mitigation measures. However, this loss would be entirely borne by 2.1% of the population, who will suffer an average of 9.79 YLL. Conclusions.: The results presented here are likely to underestimate the true impact of the mitigation strategies on YLL. However, they highlight the need for public health models to expand their scope in order to provide better estimates of the risks and benefits of mitigation.