Inflammation and immunity in schizophrenia: implications for pathophysiology and treatment.

Complex interactions between the immune system and the brain might have important aetiological and therapeutic implications for neuropsychiatric brain disorders. A possible association between schizophrenia and the immune system was postulated over a century ago, and is supported by epidemiological and genetic studies pointing to links with infection and inflammation. Contrary to the traditional view that the brain is an immunologically privileged site shielded behind the blood-brain barrier, studies in the past 20 years have noted complex interactions between the immune system, systemic inflammation, and the brain, which can lead to changes in mood, cognition, and behaviour. In this Review, we describe some of the important areas of research regarding innate and adaptive immune response in schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders that, we think, will be of interest to psychiatric clinicians and researchers. We discuss potential mechanisms and therapeutic implications of these findings, including studies of anti-inflammatory drugs in schizophrenia, describe areas for development, and offer testable hypotheses for future investigations.The work was supported by a doctoral clinical research training fellowship grant from the Wellcome Trust to Golam Khandaker (094790/Z/10/Z; 2010-‘13), grants from the Stanley Medical Research Institute and the National Institutes of Mental Health (grant# MH-94268) to Robert Yolken, and grants from the Wellcome Trust (095844/Z/11/Z & 088869/Z/09/Z), and the NIHR (RP-PG-0606-1335) to Peter Jones.This is the accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366%2814%2900122-9/abstrac

Modafinil Improves Episodic Memory and Working Memory Cognition in Patients With Remitted Depression: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive dysfunction is a core feature of depression and tends to persist even after mood symptoms recover, leading to detrimental effects on clinical and functional outcomes. However, most currently available treatments have not typically addressed cognition. Modafinil has been shown to have beneficial effects on cognitive function and therefore has the potential to improve cognition in depression. The objective of this double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to investigate the effects of modafinil on cognitive functions in patients with remitted depression. METHODS: In total, 60 patients with remitted depression participated in the study. Cognitive functions were evaluated with tests of working memory, planning, attention, and episodic memory from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery at the baseline session and after treatment. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel groups design was used to assess the effects of single-dose (200 mg) modafinil (n = 30) or placebo (n = 30) on cognition and fatigue. The main outcome measures were neurocognitive test scores from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery. Visual analogue scales for subjective feelings and fatigue were used as secondary measures. RESULTS: The modafinil group had significantly better performance on tests of episodic memory (p = .01, ηp2 = .10) and working memory (p = .04, ηp2 = .06). Modafinil did not improve planning or sustained attention. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested that modafinil (200 mg) could improve episodic memory and working memory performance in patients with remitted depression. Modafinil may have potential as a therapeutic agent to help remitted depressed patients with persistent cognitive difficulties.This study was funded by a core award to the Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute from the Medical Research Council (MRC, Centre Grant No. G1000183) and the Wellcome Trust (Strategic Award 093875/Z/10/Z). MK is a Ph.D. student funded by an Islamic Development Bank–Cambridge International Scholarship, and he received financial support from his affiliated institution, Bahcesehir University, during his studies. JBR is supported by the Wellcome Trust (103838)

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological systematic review of health technology assessments

Background: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. Methods: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. Results: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. Conclusions: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Dissociable effects of acute SSRI (escitalopram) on executive, learning and emotional functions in healthy humans.

Serotonin is implicated in multiple executive functions including goal-directed learning, cognitive flexibility, response inhibition and emotional regulation. These functions are impaired in several psychiatric disorders, such as depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder. We tested the cognitive effects of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor escitalopram, using an acute and clinically relevant dose (20 mg), in 66 healthy male and female volunteers in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Participants performed a cognitive test battery including a probabilistic and reversal learning task, the CANTAB intra-dimensional/extra-dimensional shift test of cognitive flexibility, a response inhibition task with interleaved stop-signal and No-Go trials and tasks measuring emotional processing. We showed that acute escitalopram administration impaired learning and cognitive flexibility, but improved the ability to inhibit responses in stop-signal trials while leaving unaffected acute emotional processing. Our findings suggest a dissociation of effects of acute escitalopram on cognitive functions, possibly mediated by differential modulation of brain serotonin levels in distinct functional neural circuits.This work was supported by a Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award to TW Robbins (104631/Z/14/Z) and by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (Mental Health theme). NS was supported by a Medical Research Council Doctoral Grant Studentship (1432057), JBR by the Wellcome Trust (103838), VV by a Medical Research Council Senior Fellowship (MR/P008747/1), SCR by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Fellowship (110049/Z/15/Z), LP by the Medical Research Council (MR/P01271X/1) and FC employed by Cambridge Cognition. JBR received research grants unrelated to this work from Medical Research Council, James S McDonnell Foundation, PSPAssociation, AZ-Medimmune, Janssen and Lilly, and served as editor for Brain. RR received a grant (16KNO16238) by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy. BJS Consults for Cambridge Cognition, PEAK and Mundipharma, SRC for Cambridge Cognition and Shire, and TWR for Cambridge Cognition, Mundipharma and Unilever, has held research grants from Shionogi and Lundbeck and receives Royalties for CANTAB

The Effect of Clozapine on Self-reported Duration of Sleep and Its Interaction With 23 Other Medications: A 5-Year Naturalistic Study.

BACKGROUND: Sedation is a common and incapacitating clozapine adverse effect, but the factors associated with sedation and its pharmacological management remain poorly studied. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on deidentified electronic clinical records of clozapine-treated patients from the secondary mental health care provider for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, United Kingdom. We first evaluated cross-sectionally the influence of clozapine dose, clozapine, and norclozapine plasma levels on self-reported hours slept, as a proxy for sedation, using bivariate correlation and then the longitudinal effect of changes in clozapine dose and other 23 medications using linear mixed effect models. We followed 241 clozapine-treated patients for 56 months on average, with 2237 face-to-face assessments in total. RESULTS: Patients slept for a mean of 9.35 h/d, with 46% reporting 10 h/d or more. Cross-sectionally, sleep duration did not correlate with clozapine dose (r = 0.14, P = 0.106), but with clozapine plasma levels (r = 0.38, P < 0.0001) and norclozapine plasma levels (r = 0.25, P = 0.005). Longitudinally, the final mixed-effects model revealed 4 pharmacological variables that had a significant impact on hours slept: clozapine, risperidone augmentation, and atenolol were associated with increased sleep, whereas aripiprazole augmentation was associated with decreased sleep. We found that 20 other psychotropic medications measured were not associated with changes in sleep when added to clozapine. Excess sleep is a clozapine level-dependent adverse effect. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of different augmentation strategies might help clinicians decide on the most adequate strategy, albeit further studies should confirm our results.This study has not received direct funding. Clinical Research Database (CRD) was supported by intramural grant by National Institute Health Research – Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR-BRC-1215-20014); the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care