Objective: To investigate the incidence, course and outcome of psychotic experiences from childhood through early adulthood in the general population, and prediction of psychotic disorder.Methods: A population-based cohort study using the semi-structured Psychosis-like Symptoms interview of psychotic experiences at ages 12, 18, and 24 (N=7900 with any data). Incidence rates were estimated using flexible parametric modelling, and positive predictive values (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve estimated for prediction. Results:The incidence rate of psychotic experiences increased between ages 13-24 years, peaking during late adolescence. Of 3866 interviewed at age 24, 313 (8.1%, 95%CI 7.2%, 9.0%) had a definite psychotic experience since age 12. 109 individuals (2.8%) met criteria for a psychotic disorder up to age 24, of whom 70% had sought professional help.Prediction of current psychotic disorder at age 24 (N=47, 1.2%) by both self-report and interviewerrated measures of psychotic experiences at age 18 (PPVs 2.9% and 10.0% respectively) was improved by incorporating information on frequency and distress (PPVs 13.3% and 20.0% respectively), although sensitivities were low. The PPV of an at-risk mental state at age 18 predicting incident disorder ages 18-24 was 21.1% (95%CI 6.1%-45.6%; sensitivity 14.3%, 95%CI 4.0%-32.7%). Conclusions:Our study shows a peak in incidence of psychotic experience during late adolescence, and an unmet need for care in young people with psychotic disorders. Because of the low sensitivity, targeting individuals in non-help-seeking samples based only on more severe symptom cut-off thresholds will likely have little impact on population-levels of first-episode psychosis.We are extremely grateful to all the families who took part in this study, the midwives for their help in recruiting them, and the whole ALSPAC team, which includes interviewers, computer and laboratory technicians, clerical workers, research scientists, volunteers, managers, receptionists and nurses. This publication is the work of all authors and SZ will serve as guarantor for the contents of this paper.

No adverse effect of low-dose MTX (mean 10 mg/week) on bone formation in RA was found.

Background Self-administered questionnaires are widely used in primary care and other clinical settings to assess the severity of depressive symptoms and monitor treatment outcomes. Qualitative studies have found that changes in questionnaire scores might not fully capture patients' experience of changes in their mood but there are no quantitative studies of this issue. We examined the extent to which changes in scores from depression questionnaires disagreed with primary care patients' perceptions of changes in their mood and investigated factors influencing this relationship. Methods Prospective cohort study assessing patients on four occasions, 2 weeks apart. Patients (N = 554) were recruited from primary care surgeries in three UK sites (Bristol, Liverpool and York) and had reported depressive symptoms or low mood in the past year [68% female, mean age 48.3 (s.d. 12.6)]. Main outcome measures were changes in scores on patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and beck depression inventory (BDI-II) and the patients' own ratings of change. Results There was marked disagreement between clinically important changes in questionnaire scores and patient-rated change, with disagreement of 51% (95% CI 46–55%) on PHQ-9 and 55% (95% CI 51–60%) on BDI-II. Patients with more severe anxiety were less likely, and those with better mental and physical health-related quality of life were more likely, to report feeling better, having controlled for depression scores. Conclusions Our results illustrate the limitations of self-reported depression scales to assess clinical change. Clinicians should be cautious in interpreting changes in questionnaire scores without further clinical assessment.

Background Despite a growing number of prescriptions for antidepressants (over 70 million in 2018), there is uncertainty about when people with depression might benefit from antidepressant medication and concern that antidepressants are prescribed unnecessarily. Objectives The main objective of the PANDA (What are the indications for Prescribing ANtiDepressAnts that will lead to a clinical benefit?) research programme was to provide more guidance about when antidepressants are likely to benefit people with depression. We aimed to estimate the minimal clinically important difference for commonly used self-administered scales for depression and anxiety, and to understand more about how patients respond to such assessments. We carried out an observational study of patients with depressive symptoms and a placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial of sertraline versus placebo to estimate the treatment effect in UK primary care. The hypothesis was that the severity and duration of symptoms were related to treatment response. Design The programme consisted of three phases. The first phase relied on the secondary analysis of existing data extracted from published trials. The second phase was the PANDA cohort study of patients with depressive symptoms who presented to primary care and were followed up 2, 4 and 6 weeks after a baseline assessment. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the analysis. The third phase was a multicentre randomised placebo-controlled double-blind trial of sertraline versus placebo in patients presenting to primary care with depressive symptoms. Setting UK primary care in Bristol, London, Liverpool and York. Participants Patients aged 18–74 years who were experiencing depressive symptoms in primary care. Eligibility for the PANDA randomised controlled trial included that there was uncertainty about the benefits about treatment with an antidepressant. Interventions In the PANDA randomised controlled trial, patients were individually randomised to 100 mg daily of sertraline or an identical placebo. The PANDA cohort study was an observational study. Main outcome measures Depressive symptoms measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire were the primary outcome for the randomised controlled trial. Other outcomes included anxiety symptoms using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; depressive symptoms using the Beck Depression Inventory, version 2; health-related quality of life; self-reported improvement; and cost-effectiveness. Results The secondary analysis of existing randomised controlled trials [GENetic and clinical Predictors Of treatment response in Depression (GenPod), TREAting Depression with physical activity (TREAD) and Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive Behavioural Therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression in primary care (CoBalT)] found evidence that the minimal clinically important difference increased as the initial severity of depressive symptoms rose. Our estimates of minimal clinically important difference were a 17% and 18% reduction in Beck Depression Inventory scores for GenPod and TREAD, respectively. In CoBalT, a 32% reduction corresponded to the minimal clinically important difference but the participants in this study had depression that had not responded to antidepressants. In the PANDA study cohort, and from our analyses in existing data, we found that the minimal clinically important difference varies considerably with the initial severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Expressing the minimal clinically important difference as a percentage reduction reduces this variation at higher scores, but at low scores the percentage reduction increased substantially. The results from the qualitative studies pointed out many limitations of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items in assessing change and recovery from depression. In the PANDA randomised controlled trial, there was no evidence that sertraline resulted in a reduction in depressive symptoms within 6 weeks of randomisation, but there was some evidence of a reduction by 12 weeks. However, sertraline led to a reduction in anxiety symptoms, an improvement of mental health-related quality of life and an increased likelihood of reporting improvement. The mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 6 weeks was 7.98 (standard deviation 5.63) in the sertraline group and 8.76 (standard deviation 5.86) in the placebo group (5% relative reduction, 95% confidence interval –7% to 15%; p = 0.41). Of the secondary outcomes, there was strong evidence that sertraline reduced anxiety symptoms (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 score reduced by 17% (95% confidence interval 9% to 25%; p = 0.00005). Sertraline had a high probability (> 90%) of being cost-effective at 12 weeks. The PANDA randomised controlled trial found no evidence that treatment response or cost-effectiveness was related to severity or duration of depressive symptoms. The minimal clinically important difference estimates suggested that sertraline’s effect on anxiety, but not on depression, was likely to be clinically important. Limitations The results from the randomised controlled trial and the estimates of minimal clinically important difference were not sufficiently precise to provide specific clinical guidance for individuals. We had low power in testing whether or not initial severity and duration of depressive symptoms are related to treatment response. Conclusions The results of the trial support the use of sertraline and probably other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors because of their action in reducing anxiety symptoms and the likelihood of longer-term benefit on depressive symptoms. Sertraline could be prescribed for anxiety symptoms that commonly occur with depression and many patients will experience a clinical benefit. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items and similar self-administered scales should not be used on their own to assess clinical outcome, but should be supplemented with further clinical assessment. Future work We need to examine the longer-term effects of antidepressant treatment. We need more precise estimates of the treatment effects and minimal clinically important difference at different severities to provide more specific guidance for individuals. However, the methods we have developed provide an approach towards providing such detailed guidance. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84544741 and EudraCT number 2013-003440-22. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of rectal gluten challenge in the diagnosis of coeliac disease. A total of 103 patients with features suggestive of this diagnosis were prospectively enrolled into the study; a diagnosis of coeliac disease was based on strictly defined criteria used in judging the proximal jejunal biopsy. On that basis, 45 out of the 103 patients were deemed to have coeliac disease. A slurry of gluten powder in physiological saline was introduced into the rectum, and biopsies taken before and at 2 h or 4 h after the challenge were examined immunohistochemically by computerized image analysis. Cell counts were analysed by logistic regression, and the best equations were obtained for each challenge group. The 2 h challenge yielded diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of 69.6% and 78.6% respectively. The 4 h challenge provided sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 100% respectively. These results were compared with other clinical diagnostic predictors,including anti-endomysial antibodies, which yielded diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of 70% and 98% respectively. It is concluded that a 4 h rectal challenge is a highly sensitive means of identifying gluten-sensitized individuals, and would be of particular value in cases showing negative antibody screening or equivocal biopsy appearances.