To our knowledge, no previous meta-analysis has attempted to compare the efficacy of pharmacological, psychological and combined treatments for the three main anxiety disorders (panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and social phobia). Pre-post and treated versus control effect sizes (ES) were calculated for all evaluable randomized-controlled studies (n = 234), involving 37,333 patients. Medications were associated with a significantly higher average pre-post ES [Cohen's d = 2.02 (1.90-2.15); 28,051 patients] than psychotherapies [1.22 (1.14-1.30); 6992 patients; P < 0.0001]. ES were 2.25 for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (n = 23 study arms), 2.15 for benzodiazepines (n = 42), 2.09 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (n = 62) and 1.83 for tricyclic antidepressants (n = 15). ES for psychotherapies were mindfulness therapies, 1.56 (n = 4); relaxation, 1.36 (n = 17); individual cognitive behavioural/exposure therapy (CBT), 1.30 (n = 93); group CBT, 1.22 (n = 18); psychodynamic therapy 1.17 (n = 5); therapies without face-to-face contact (e.g. Internet therapies), 1.11 (n = 34); eye movement desensitization reprocessing, 1.03 (n = 3); and interpersonal therapy 0.78 (n = 4). The ES was 2.12 (n = 16) for CBT/drug combinations. Exercise had an ES of 1.23 (n = 3). For control groups, ES were 1.29 for placebo pills (n = 111), 0.83 for psychological placebos (n = 16) and 0.20 for waitlists (n = 50). In direct comparisons with control groups, all investigated drugs, except for citalopram, opipramol and moclobemide, were significantly more effective than placebo. Individual CBT was more effective than waiting list, psychological placebo and pill placebo. When looking at the average pre-post ES, medications were more effective than psychotherapies. Pre-post ES for psychotherapies did not differ from pill placebos; this finding cannot be explained by heterogeneity, publication bias or allegiance effects. However, the decision on whether to choose psychotherapy, medications or a combination of the two should be left to the patient as drugs may have side effects, interactions and contraindications.

In current diagnostic systems, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are still conceptualized as distinct categorical entities. Recently, both clinical and genomic evidence have challenged this Kraepelinian dichotomy. There are only few longitudinal studies addressing potential overlaps between these conditions. Here, we present design and first results of the PsyCourse study (N = 891 individuals at baseline), an ongoing transdiagnostic study of the affective-to-psychotic continuum that combines longitudinal deep phenotyping and dimensional assessment of psychopathology with an extensive collection of biomaterial. To provide an initial characterization of the PsyCourse study sample, we compare two broad diagnostic groups defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) classification system, that is, predominantly affective (n = 367 individuals) versus predominantly psychotic disorders (n = 524 individuals). Depressive, manic, and psychotic symptoms as well as global functioning over time were contrasted using linear mixed models. Furthermore, we explored the effects of polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia on diagnostic group membership and addressed their effects on nonparticipation in follow-up visits. While phenotypic results confirmed expected differences in current psychotic symptoms and global functioning, both manic and depressive symptoms did not vary between both groups after correction for multiple testing. Polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia significantly explained part of the variability of diagnostic group. The PsyCourse study presents a unique resource to research the complex relationships of psychopathology and biology in severe mental disorders not confined to traditional diagnostic boundaries and is open for collaborations.

Identifying psychosis subgroups could improve clinical and research precision. Research has focused on symptom subgroups, but there is a need to consider a broader clinical spectrum, disentangle illness trajectories, and investigate genetic associations. OBJECTIVE To detect psychosis subgroups using data-driven methods and examine their illness courses over 1.5 years and polygenic scores for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression disorder, and educational achievement. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This ongoing multisite, naturalistic, longitudinal (6-month intervals) cohort study began in January 2012 across 18 sites. Data from a referred sample of 1223 individuals (765 in the discovery sample and 458 in the validation sample) with DSM-IV diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder (I/II), schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform disorder, and brief psychotic disorder were collected from secondary and tertiary care sites.

In clinical practice and in research, there is an ongoing debate on how to return incidental and secondary findings of genetic tests to patients and research participants. Previous investigations have found that most of the people most of the time are in favor of full disclosure of results. Yet, the option to reject disclosure, based on the so-called right not to know, can be valuable especially for some vulnerable subgroups of recipients. In the present study we investigated variations in informational preferences in the context of genetic testing in a large and diverse German sample. This survey examined health care professionals, patients, participants of genetic counseling sessions and members of the general population (N = 518). Survey participants were assessed regarding their openness to learning about findings under various hypothetical scenarios, as well as their attitudes about the doctor-patient-relationship in a disclosure situation and about informational transfer to third parties. While the majority of participants wanted to learn about their findings, the extent of support of disclosure varied with features of the hypothetical diagnostic scenarios (e.g., controllability of disease; abstract vs. concrete scenario description) and demographic characteristics of the subjects. For example, subjects with higher levels of education were more selective with regards to the kind of information they want to receive than those with lower levels of education. We discuss implications of these findings for the debate about the right not to know and for the clinical practice of informed consent procedures.

The current study is the largest conducted so far to investigate the association between the cumulative BD and SCZ polygenic risk and AAO in BD patients. The reported negative results suggest that such a polygenic influence, if there is any, is not large, and highlight the importance of conducting further, larger scale studies to obtain more information on the genetic architecture of this clinically relevant phenotype.

The progress of medical genetics leads to a significant increase in genetic knowledge and a vast expansion of genetic diagnostics. However, it is still unknown how these changes will be integrated into medical practice and how they will change patients' and healthy persons' perception and evaluation of genetic diagnoses and genetic knowledge. Therefore, we carried out a comprehensive questionnaire survey with more than 500 patients, clients seeking genetic counseling, health care staff, and healthy persons (N = 523). The questionnaire survey covered detailed questions on the value of genetic diagnoses for the different groups of study participants, the right to know or not to know genetic diagnoses, possible differences between genetic and other medical diagnoses, and the practical use and implications of genetic knowledge with a special focus on hereditary neuropsychiatric diseases. A huge majority of the participants (90.7%) stated to have a right to learn every aspect of her or his genetic make-up. Similarly, study participants showed high interest (81.8%) in incidental health care findings-independent of whether the diseases are treatable or not. One can derive from the data outcome that study participants did not follow the implications of a "genetic exceptionalism" and often considered genetic findings as equivalent in relation to other medical diagnoses.

In current diagnostic systems, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are still conceptualized as distinct categorical entities. Recently, both clinical and genetic evidence have challenged this Kraepelinian dichotomy. There are only few longitudinal studies addressing the potential overlaps between these conditions. Here, we present design and first results of the PsyCourse study, an ongoing transdiagnostic study of the affective-to-psychotic continuum that combines longitudinal deep phenotyping and dimensional assessment of psychopathology with an extensive collection of biomaterial. Within the DSM-IV framework, we compare two broad diagnostic groups: one consisting of predominantly affective and one of predominantly psychotic disorders. Depressive, manic, and psychotic symptoms as well as global functioning over time were analyzed. Furthermore, we explore the effects of polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia on diagnostic group membership and address their effects on non-participation in follow-up visits. While phenotypic results show differences in both current psychotic and manic symptoms, depressive symptoms did not vary between both groups. Polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia significantly explained part of the variability of the diagnostic group. Furthermore, there was a trend that a higher polygenic loading for schizophrenia was associated with attrition. Because of its unique properties, the PsyCourse study presents a prime resource for the interrogation of complex genotype-phenotype relationships.

The German Association for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (DGPPN) has committed itself to establish a prospective national cohort of patients with major psychiatric disorders, the so-called DGPPN-Cohort. This project will enable the scientific exploitation of high-quality data and biomaterial from psychiatric patients for research. It will be set up using harmonised data sets and procedures for sample generation and guided by transparent rules for data access and data sharing regarding the central research database. While the main focus lies on biological research, it will be open to all kinds of scientific investigations, including epidemiological, clinical or health-service research.