Decision-Making Competence and Attempted Suicide

Objective: The propensity of people vulnerable to suicide to make poor life decisions is increasingly well documented. Do they display an extreme degree of decision biases? The present study used a behavioral decision approach to examine the susceptibility of low-lethality and high-lethality suicide attempters to common decision biases, which may ultimately obscure alternative solutions and deterrents to suicide in a crisis. Method: We assessed older and middle-aged individuals who made high-lethality (medically serious; N=31) and low-lethality suicide attempts (N=29). Comparison groups included suicide ideators (N=30), non-suicidal depressed (N=53), and psychiatrically healthy participants (N=28). Attempters, ideators, and non-suicidal depressed participants had unipolar non-psychotic major depression. Decision biases included sunk cost (inability to abort an action for which costs are irrecoverable), framing (responding to superficial features of how a problem is presented), under/overconfidence (appropriateness of confidence in knowledge), and inconsistent risk perception. Data were collected between June of 2010 and February of 2014. Results: Both high- and low-lethality attempters were more susceptible to framing effects, as compared to the other groups included in this study (p< 0.05, ηp2 =.06). In contrast, low-lethality attempters were more susceptible to sunk costs than both the comparison groups and high-lethality attempters (p< 0.01, ηp2 =.09). These group differences remained after accounting for age, global cognitive performance, and impulsive traits. Premorbid IQ partially explained group differences in framing effects. Conclusion: Suicide attempters’ failure to resist framing may reflect their inability to consider a decision from an objective standpoint in a crisis. Low-lethality attempters’ failure to resist sunk cost may reflect their tendency to confuse past and future costs of their behavior, lowering their threshold for acting on suicidal thoughts

Residual sleep disturbance and risk of relapse during the continuation/maintenance phase treatment of major depressive disorder with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Relapse of major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common clinical problem. This study was designed to determine whether residual sleep disturbance (insomnia and hypersomnia) predict risk of relapse during the continuation and maintenance treatment of MDD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 570 patients with MDD were treated with open-label, flexible dose fluoxetine (range 20 to 60 mg; mean dose = 45.8 mg/day; SD = 15.1) for 12 weeks. Under double blind conditions, 262 patients who achieved clinical response were randomly assigned to continue fluoxetine or to switch to placebo for 52 weeks or until relapse. Residual sleep disturbance during the baseline visit of the double-blind phase was assessed using items 4, 5, 6 (insomnia) and 22, 23, 24 (hypersomnia) of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Survival analysis was utilized to determine the effect of residual sleep disturbance on risk of relapse.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The severities of early (<it>P </it>> 0.05), middle (<it>P </it>> 0.05), late (<it>P </it>> 0.05), or total (<it>P </it>> 0.05) residual insomnia were not found to significantly predict risk of relapse during continuation and maintenance-phase treatment. Similarly, the severities of early bedtime (<it>P </it>> 0.05), oversleeping (<it>P </it>> 0.05), napping (<it>P </it>> 0.05), or total (<it>P </it>> 0.05) residual hypersomnia were not found to significantly predict risk of relapse during continuation and maintenance-phase treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The present study did not identify the severity of residual sleep disturbance among fluoxetine responders to predict risk of MDD relapse. The size of our sample may have precluded us from identifying more modest effects of residual sleep disturbance on the risk of relapse in MDD patients. Future studies are needed to further explore the relationship between residual sleep disturbance and relapse in MDD.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00427128</p

The neuroscience of suicidal behaviors: what can we expect from endophenotype strategies?

Vulnerability to suicidal behavior (SB) is likely mediated by an underlying genetic predisposition interacting with environmental and probable epigenetic factors throughout the lifespan to modify the function of neuronal circuits, thus rendering an individual more likely to engage in a suicidal act. Improving our understanding of the neuroscience underlying SBs, both attempts and completions, at all developmental stages is crucial for more effective preventive treatments and for better identification of vulnerable individuals. Recent studies have characterized SB using an endophenotype strategy, which aims to identify quantitative measures that reflect genetically influenced stable changes in brain function. In addition to aiding in the functional characterization of susceptibility genes, endophenotypic research strategies may have a wider impact in determining vulnerability to SB, as well as the translation of human findings to animal models, and vice versa. Endophenotypes associated with vulnerability to SB include impulsive/aggressive personality traits and disadvantageous decision making. Deficits in realistic risk evaluation represent key processes in vulnerability to SB. Serotonin dysfunction, indicated by neuroendocrine responses and neuroimaging, is also strongly implicated as a potential endophenotype and is linked with impulsive aggression and disadvantageous decision making. Specific endophenotypes may represent heritable markers for the identification of vulnerable patients and may be relevant targets for successful suicide prevention and treatments