Depression and anxiety are common and highly comorbid, and their comorbidity is associated with poorer outcomes posing clinical and public health concerns. We evaluated the polygenic contribution to comorbid depression and anxiety, and to each in isolation.

Diagnostic codes were extracted from electronic health records for four biobanks [N = 177 865 including 138 632 European (77.9%), 25 612 African (14.4%), and 13 621 Hispanic (7.7%) ancestry participants]. The outcome was a four-level variable representing the depression/anxiety diagnosis group: neither, depression-only, anxiety-only, and comorbid. Multinomial regression was used to test for association of depression and anxiety polygenic risk scores (PRSs) with the outcome while adjusting for principal components of ancestry.

In total, 132 960 patients had neither diagnosis (74.8%), 16 092 depression-only (9.0%), 13 098 anxiety-only (7.4%), and 16 584 comorbid (9.3%). In the European meta-analysis across biobanks, both PRSs were higher in each diagnosis group compared to controls. Notably, depression-PRS (OR 1.20 per s.d. increase in PRS; 95% CI 1.18–1.23) and anxiety-PRS (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.05–1.09) had the largest effect when the comorbid group was compared with controls. Furthermore, the depression-PRS was significantly higher in the comorbid group than the depression-only group (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.06–1.12) and the anxiety-only group (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.11–1.19) and was significantly higher in the depression-only group than the anxiety-only group (OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02–1.09), showing a genetic risk gradient across the conditions and the comorbidity.

This study suggests that depression and anxiety have partially independent genetic liabilities and the genetic vulnerabilities to depression and anxiety make distinct contributions to comorbid depression and anxiety.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), underscoring the urgent need for simple, efficient, and inexpensive methods to decontaminate masks and respirators exposed to severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We hypothesized that methylene blue (MB) photochemical treatment, which has various clinical applications, could decontaminate PPE contaminated with coronavirus.

The 2 arms of the study included (1) PPE inoculation with coronaviruses followed by MB with light (MBL) decontamination treatment and (2) PPE treatment with MBL for 5 cycles of decontamination to determine maintenance of PPE performance.

MBL treatment was used to inactivate coronaviruses on 3 N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) and 2 medical mask models. We inoculated FFR and medical mask materials with 3 coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, and we treated them with 10 µM MB and exposed them to 50,000 lux of white light or 12,500 lux of red light for 30 minutes. In parallel, integrity was assessed after 5 cycles of decontamination using multiple US and international test methods, and the process was compared with the FDA-authorized vaporized hydrogen peroxide plus ozone (VHP+O3) decontamination method.

Overall, MBL robustly and consistently inactivated all 3 coronaviruses with 99.8% to >99.9% virus inactivation across all FFRs and medical masks tested. FFR and medical mask integrity was maintained after 5 cycles of MBL treatment, whereas 1 FFR model failed after 5 cycles of VHP+O3.

MBL treatment decontaminated respirators and masks by inactivating 3 tested coronaviruses without compromising integrity through 5 cycles of decontamination. MBL decontamination is effective, is low cost, and does not require specialized equipment, making it applicable in low- to high-resource settings.

Lumateperone (ITI-007) is in late-phase clinical development for schizophrenia. Lumateperone has a unique mechanism of action that modulates serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate neurotransmission. This pooled analysis of lumateperone in 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies was conducted to evaluate the safety and tolerability of lumateperone 42mg (ITI-007 60mg).

Data were pooled from the 3 controlled late-phase studies of lumateperone 42mg in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Safety assessments of all patients who received at least one dose of any treatment included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), changes in laboratory parameters, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and vital signs.

The safety population comprised 1,073 patients (placebo [n=412], lumateperone 42mg [n=406], risperidone [n=255]). TEAEs that occurred in the lumateperone 42mg group at a rate of ≥5% and twice placebo were somnolence/sedation (24.1% vs 10.0%) and dry mouth (5.9% vs 2.2%). Rates of discontinuation due to TEAEs with lumateperone 42mg (0.5%) were similar to placebo (0.5%) and lower than risperidone (4.7%). Mean change in weight and rates of EPS-related TEAEs were less for lumateperone 42mg and placebo patients than risperidone patients. Mean change from baseline in metabolic parameters were similar or smaller for lumateperone 42mg vs placebo. Mean changes were notably higher in risperidone patients vs lumateperone 42mg and placebo for glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and prolactin.

In this pooled analysis, lumateperone 42mg showed good tolerability with potential benefits over risperidone for metabolic, prolactin, and EPS risks. The only TEAE that occurred in >10% of lumateperone patients was somnolence/sedation, which was impacted by morning administration; in subsequent studies that administered lumateperone in the evening, somnolence/sedation rates were markedly reduced. These results suggest that lumateperone 42mg may be a promising new treatment for schizophrenia.

Supported by funding from Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.

Many institutions are attempting to implement patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Because PROs often change clinical workflows significantly for patients and providers, implementation choices can have major impact. While various implementation guides exist, a stepwise list of decision points covering the full implementation process and drawing explicitly on a sociotechnical conceptual framework does not exist.

To facilitate real-world implementation of PROs in electronic health records (EHRs) for use in clinical practice, members of the EHR Access to Seamless Integration of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Consortium developed structured PRO implementation planning tools. Each institution pilot tested the tools. Joint meetings led to the identification of critical sociotechnical success factors.

Three tools were developed and tested: (1) a PRO Planning Guide summarizes the empirical knowledge and guidance about PRO implementation in routine clinical care; (2) a Decision Log allows decision tracking; and (3) an Implementation Plan Template simplifies creation of a sharable implementation plan. Seven lessons learned during implementation underscore the iterative nature of planning and the importance of the clinician champion, as well as the need to understand aims, manage implementation barriers, minimize disruption, provide ample discussion time, and continuously engage key stakeholders.

Highly structured planning tools, informed by a sociotechnical perspective, enabled the construction of clear, clinic-specific plans. By developing and testing three reusable tools (freely available for immediate use), our project addressed the need for consolidated guidance and created new materials for PRO implementation planning. We identified seven important lessons that, while common to technology implementation, are especially critical in PRO implementation.

UK Biobank is a well-characterised cohort of over 500 000 participants including genetics, environmental data and imaging. An online mental health questionnaire was designed for UK Biobank participants to expand its potential.

Describe the development, implementation and results of this questionnaire.

An expert working group designed the questionnaire, using established measures where possible, and consulting a patient group. Operational criteria were agreed for defining likely disorder and risk states, including lifetime depression, mania/hypomania, generalised anxiety disorder, unusual experiences and self-harm, and current post-traumatic stress and hazardous/harmful alcohol use.

A total of 157 366 completed online questionnaires were available by August 2017. Participants were aged 45–82 (53% were ≥65 years) and 57% women. Comparison of self-reported diagnosed mental disorder with a contemporary study shows a similar prevalence, despite respondents being of higher average socioeconomic status. Lifetime depression was a common finding, with 24% (37 434) of participants meeting criteria and current hazardous/harmful alcohol use criteria were met by 21% (32 602), whereas other criteria were met by less than 8% of the participants. There was extensive comorbidity among the syndromes. Mental disorders were associated with a high neuroticism score, adverse life events and long-term illness; addiction and bipolar affective disorder in particular were associated with measures of deprivation.

The UK Biobank questionnaire represents a very large mental health survey in itself, and the results presented here show high face validity, although caution is needed because of selection bias. Built into UK Biobank, these data intersect with other health data to offer unparalleled potential for crosscutting biomedical research involving mental health.

Comparisons of antipsychotics with placebo can be biased by unblinding due to side effects. Therefore, this meta-analysis compared the efficacy of antipsychotics for acute schizophrenia in trials using barbiturates or benzodiazepines as active placebos.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in acute schizophrenia with at least 3 weeks duration and comparing any antipsychotic with barbiturates or benzodiazepines were eligible. ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, WHO-ICTRP as well as previous reviews were searched up to 9 January 2018. Two separate meta-analyses, one for barbiturates and one for benzodiazepines, were conducted using random-effects models. The primary outcome was response to treatment, and mean values of schizophrenia rating scales and dropouts were analyzed as secondary outcomes. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018086263).

Seven barbiturate-RCTs (number of participants n = 1736), and two benzodiazepine-RCTs (n = 76) were included in the analysis. The studies were published between 1960 and 1968 and involved mainly chronically ill patients. More patients on antipsychotics in comparison to barbiturates achieved a ‘good’ response (36.2% v. 16.8%; RR 2.15; 95% CI 1.36–3.41; I2 = 48.9) and ‘any’ response (57.4% v. 27.8%; RR 2.07; 95% CI 1.35–3.18; I2 = 68.2). In a single small trial (n = 60), there was no difference between antipsychotics and benzodiazepines on ‘any’ response (74.7% v. 65%; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.82–1.62).

Antipsychotic drugs were more efficacious than barbiturates, based on a large sample size. Response ratios were similar to those observed in placebo-controlled trials. The results on benzodiazepines were inconclusive due to the small number of studies and participants.