Accurate diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BPD) is difficult in clinical practice, with an average delay between symptom onset and diagnosis of about 7 years. A depressive episode often precedes the first manic episode, making it difficult to distinguish BPD from unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD).

We use genome-wide association analyses (GWAS) to identify differential genetic factors and to develop predictors based on polygenic risk scores (PRS) that may aid early differential diagnosis.

Based on individual genotypes from case–control cohorts of BPD and MDD shared through the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, we compile case–case–control cohorts, applying a careful quality control procedure. In a resulting cohort of 51 149 individuals (15 532 BPD patients, 12 920 MDD patients and 22 697 controls), we perform a variety of GWAS and PRS analyses.

Although our GWAS is not well powered to identify genome-wide significant loci, we find significant chip heritability and demonstrate the ability of the resulting PRS to distinguish BPD from MDD, including BPD cases with depressive onset (BPD-D). We replicate our PRS findings in an independent Danish cohort (iPSYCH 2015, N = 25 966). We observe strong genetic correlation between our case–case GWAS and that of case–control BPD.

We find that MDD and BPD, including BPD-D are genetically distinct. Our findings support that controls, MDD and BPD patients primarily lie on a continuum of genetic risk. Future studies with larger and richer samples will likely yield a better understanding of these findings and enable the development of better genetic predictors distinguishing BPD and, importantly, BPD-D from MDD.

The Personalized Advantage Index (PAI) shows promise as a method for identifying the most effective treatment for individual patients. Previous studies have demonstrated its utility in retrospective evaluations across various settings. In this study, we explored the effect of different methodological choices in predictive modelling underlying the PAI.

Our approach involved a two-step procedure. First, we conducted a review of prior studies utilizing the PAI, evaluating each study using the Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). We specifically assessed whether the studies adhered to two standards of predictive modeling: refraining from using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO CV) and preventing data leakage. Second, we examined the impact of deviating from these methodological standards in real data. We employed both a traditional approach violating these standards and an advanced approach implementing them in two large-scale datasets, PANIC-net (n = 261) and Protect-AD (n = 614).

The PROBAST-rating revealed a substantial risk of bias across studies, primarily due to inappropriate methodological choices. Most studies did not adhere to the examined prediction modeling standards, employing LOO CV and allowing data leakage. The comparison between the traditional and advanced approach revealed that ignoring these standards could systematically overestimate the utility of the PAI.

Our study cautions that violating standards in predictive modeling may strongly influence the evaluation of the PAI's utility, possibly leading to false positive results. To support an unbiased evaluation, crucial for potential clinical application, we provide a low-bias, openly accessible, and meticulously annotated script implementing the PAI.

Identifying youths most at risk to COVID-19-related mental illness is essential for the development of effective targeted interventions.

To compare trajectories of mental health throughout the pandemic in youth with and without prior mental illness and identify those most at risk of COVID-19-related mental illness.

Data were collected from individuals aged 18–26 years (N = 669) from two existing cohorts: IMAGEN, a population-based cohort; and ESTRA/STRATIFY, clinical cohorts of individuals with pre-existing diagnoses of mental disorders. Repeated COVID-19 surveys and standardised mental health assessments were used to compare trajectories of mental health symptoms from before the pandemic through to the second lockdown.

Mental health trajectories differed significantly between cohorts. In the population cohort, depression and eating disorder symptoms increased by 33.9% (95% CI 31.78–36.57) and 15.6% (95% CI 15.39–15.68) during the pandemic, respectively. By contrast, these remained high over time in the clinical cohort. Conversely, trajectories of alcohol misuse were similar in both cohorts, decreasing continuously (a 15.2% decrease) during the pandemic. Pre-pandemic symptom severity predicted the observed mental health trajectories in the population cohort. Surprisingly, being relatively healthy predicted increases in depression and eating disorder symptoms and in body mass index. By contrast, those initially at higher risk for depression or eating disorders reported a lasting decrease.

Healthier young people may be at greater risk of developing depressive or eating disorder symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Targeted mental health interventions considering prior diagnostic risk may be warranted to help young people cope with the challenges of psychosocial stress and reduce the associated healthcare burden.

Palliative sedation (PS) is an intrusive measure to relieve patients at the end of their life from otherwise untreatable symptoms. Intensive discussion of the advantages and limitations of palliative care with the patients and their relatives should precede the initiation of PS since PS is terminated by the patient’s death in most cases. Drugs for PS are usually administered intravenously. Midazolam is widely used, either alone or in combination with other substances. PS can be conducted in both inpatient and outpatient settings; however, a quality analysis comparing both modalities was missing so far.

This prospective observational study collected data from patients undergoing PS inpatient at the palliative care unit (PCU, n = 26) or outpatient at a hospice (n = 2) or at home (specialized outpatient palliative care [SAPV], n = 31) between July 2017 and June 2018. Demographical data, indications for PS, and drug protocols were analyzed. The depth of sedation according to the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and the degree of satisfaction of staff members and patient’s relatives were included as parameters for quality assessment.

Patients undergoing PS at the PCU were slightly younger compared to outpatients (hospice and SAPV combined). Most patients suffered from malignant diseases, and midazolam was the backbone of sedation for inpatients and outpatients. The median depth of sedation was between +1 and −3 according to the RASS with a trend to deeper sedation prior to death. The median degree of satisfaction was “good,” scored by staff members and by patient’s relatives. Significant differences between inpatients and outpatients were not seen in protocols, depth of sedation, and degree of satisfaction.

The data support the thesis that PS is possible for inpatients and outpatients with comparable results. For choosing the best place for PS, other aspects such as patient’s and relative’s wishes, stress, and medical reasons should be considered.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, with its impact on our way of life, is affecting our experiences and mental health. Notably, individuals with mental disorders have been reported to have a higher risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Personality traits could represent an important determinant of preventative health behaviour and, therefore, the risk of contracting the virus.

We examined overlapping genetic underpinnings between major psychiatric disorders, personality traits and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Linkage disequilibrium score regression was used to explore the genetic correlations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) susceptibility with psychiatric disorders and personality traits based on data from the largest available respective genome-wide association studies (GWAS). In two cohorts (the PsyCourse (n = 1346) and the HeiDE (n = 3266) study), polygenic risk scores were used to analyse if a genetic association between, psychiatric disorders, personality traits and COVID-19 susceptibility exists in individual-level data.

We observed no significant genetic correlations of COVID-19 susceptibility with psychiatric disorders. For personality traits, there was a significant genetic correlation for COVID-19 susceptibility with extraversion (P = 1.47 × 10−5; genetic correlation 0.284). Yet, this was not reflected in individual-level data from the PsyCourse and HeiDE studies.

We identified no significant correlation between genetic risk factors for severe psychiatric disorders and genetic risk for COVID-19 susceptibility. Among the personality traits, extraversion showed evidence for a positive genetic association with COVID-19 susceptibility, in one but not in another setting. Overall, these findings highlight a complex contribution of genetic and non-genetic components in the interaction between COVID-19 susceptibility and personality traits or mental disorders.

Studying phenotypic and genetic characteristics of age at onset (AAO) and polarity at onset (PAO) in bipolar disorder can provide new insights into disease pathology and facilitate the development of screening tools.

To examine the genetic architecture of AAO and PAO and their association with bipolar disorder disease characteristics.

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) and polygenic score (PGS) analyses of AAO (n = 12 977) and PAO (n = 6773) were conducted in patients with bipolar disorder from 34 cohorts and a replication sample (n = 2237). The association of onset with disease characteristics was investigated in two of these cohorts.

Earlier AAO was associated with a higher probability of psychotic symptoms, suicidality, lower educational attainment, not living together and fewer episodes. Depressive onset correlated with suicidality and manic onset correlated with delusions and manic episodes. Systematic differences in AAO between cohorts and continents of origin were observed. This was also reflected in single-nucleotide variant-based heritability estimates, with higher heritabilities for stricter onset definitions. Increased PGS for autism spectrum disorder (β = −0.34 years, s.e. = 0.08), major depression (β = −0.34 years, s.e. = 0.08), schizophrenia (β = −0.39 years, s.e. = 0.08), and educational attainment (β = −0.31 years, s.e. = 0.08) were associated with an earlier AAO. The AAO GWAS identified one significant locus, but this finding did not replicate. Neither GWAS nor PGS analyses yielded significant associations with PAO.

AAO and PAO are associated with indicators of bipolar disorder severity. Individuals with an earlier onset show an increased polygenic liability for a broad spectrum of psychiatric traits. Systematic differences in AAO across cohorts, continents and phenotype definitions introduce significant heterogeneity, affecting analyses.