Association between Hostility and Plasma Total Homocysteine Concentrations in a General Population Sample

Abstract

Objective: The present study focuses on testing the association of hostility with plasma homocysteine levels in a general population sample. Method: Four hundred and ten healthy adults (200 men and 210 women), participating in a health survey in Greece, had blood samples taken for homocysteine concentrations and also completed a multidimensional hostility questionnaire, assessing direction of hostility (‘extra- and intropunitive’) as well as total hostility and its ingredients, i.e. urge to act out hostility, criticism of others, delusional hostility, self-criticism and delusional guilt. Multivariate relationship was tested between hostility components and homocysteine, after statistically controlling for potential confounders such as age, gender, educational status, smoking and body mass index. Results: Total hostility, delusional guilt as well as extrapunitive direction of hostility were positively related to homocysteine levels. Self-criticism was negatively related to homocysteine. Conclusion: The study provides further evidence that particular dimensions of hostility are associated with increased plasma homocysteine levels, thus deserving a place within the spectrum of the coronary heart disease risk factors.

Relative Hyperhomocysteinemia in Patients with Panic Disorder: A Case-Control Study

“…However, in our study, the difference between anxiety patients and controls remained statistically significant after controlling for depressive symptomatology. For anger [27][28][29] as well as for acute mental stress [25,26] , previous studies reported a relationship with elevated homocysteine levels. In contrast, we did not find a correlation between depressive symptoms, anger in as well as state and trait anxiety with homocysteine levels.…”

“…Even though several studies have shown a link between behavioral or psychological factors and homocysteine concentration (for example, an increased risk of depression was associated with high plasma homocysteine in the general population [21][22][23] ; higher concentrations of homocysteine were linked with the severity of depression [24] ; transiently elevated homocysteine concentrations were found during short-term psychological stress [25,26] ; a relation was established between high plasma homocysteine and hostility [27,28] and anger inhibition in healthy adults [27,29] , and elevated serum homocysteine levels were found in male patients with posttraumatic stress disorder [30] ), only few studies have addressed the possible association between plasma homocysteine concentration and anxiety. Pitsavos et al [21] revealed that state anxiety was associated with higher homocysteine levels in cardiovascular disease-free individuals independent of age, depressive symptomatology, sociodemographic and life-style characteristics, raising the hypothesis of an additional pathway leading to increased cardiovascular events in anxious individuals [31] .…”

Retraction Statement

“…The paper entitled 'Association between hostility and plasma total homocysteine concentration in a general population sample' by C. Papageorgiou et al [1] should not have been submitted, because it contains a great deal of the results which have been published already in a previous publication of our group [2] , due to miscommunication between the fi rst author of the present paper (C. Papageorgiou) and the fi rst author of the previous publication…”

“…Moreover, the present paper was inappropriately submitted without consulting with Prof. C. Stefanadis, chairman of the 1st Department of Cardiology, University of Athens (Leader of the ATTICA Study), and Prof. C. Soldatos, current chairman of the Department of Psychiatry, University of Athens. Therefore, we ask the readership of Neuropsychobiology to kindly ignore the information contained in the paper in question.The paper entitled 'Association between hostility and plasma total homocysteine concentration in a general population sample' by C. Papageorgiou et al[1] should not have been submitted, because it contains a great deal of the results which have been published already in a previous publication of our group[2] , due to miscommunication between the fi rst author of the present paper (C. Papageorgiou) and the fi rst author of the previous publication…”