Comparative Study of Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome in Depressed Patients Attending a Tertiary Care Centre in Eastern India

Abstract

BACKGROUND Metabolic syndrome (MS) is rampant all over the world. Depression is expected to be the second most common cause of loss of DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Events) by 2020 after coronary artery disease as per WHO (World Health Organization). Previous studies show connection between depression and MS. Most studies are from western world. We tried to find MS in clinically depressed patients attending a tertiary care hospital of Eastern India. Aims and Objectives-Our objective was to assess the prevalence of MS in patients with depression who had never been treated with antidepressants for their depressive disorder and compare the same with a matched group of healthy patients. We followed the criteria proposed by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) in diagnosing MS. MATERIALS AND METHODS There are two groups. Study group (51) comprised clinically depressed patients as per ICD-10. Second group comprised healthy controls (46) who were matched for age, sex, gender, education and socioeconomic profile. Anthropometric measurement and assessment of metabolic parameters were noted in both groups. Cases were given 'Beck Depressive Inventory (BDI)' to assess severity of depression. RESULTS 31.4% of study group and 17.4% of control group had MS. Most common of MS among study group was low HDL and among control group was central obesity. CONCLUSION Our study strongly indicates association of depression and MS. Low HDL was the most common abnormality in our patient group, in which females were more in number.

The relationship between depression and risk of metabolic syndrome: a meta‐analysis of observational studies

“…Among cross-sectional studies, the highest and lowest sample sizes were for the studies by Park [ 26 ] ( n = 23,385) and Chattopadhyay [ 32 ] ( n = 97), respectively; and in four studies, the sample included over 10,000 participants [ 11 , 24 , 26 , 33 ]. Among cohort studies, the highest and lowest sample sizes were for the studies by Dregan [ 34 ] ( n = 124,445) and Viinamaki [ 35 ] ( n = 223), respectively.…”