Suicide risk in schizophrenia: learning from the past to change the future

Suicide is a major cause of death among patients with schizophrenia. Research indicates that at least 5–13% of schizophrenic patients die by suicide, and it is likely that the higher end of range is the most accurate estimate. There is almost total agreement that the schizophrenic patient who is more likely to commit suicide is young, male, white and never married, with good premorbid function, post-psychotic depression and a history of substance abuse and suicide attempts. Hopelessness, social isolation, hospitalization, deteriorating health after a high level of premorbid functioning, recent loss or rejection, limited external support, and family stress or instability are risk factors for suicide in patients with schizophrenia. Suicidal schizophrenics usually fear further mental deterioration, and they experience either excessive treatment dependence or loss of faith in treatment. Awareness of illness has been reported as a major issue among suicidal schizophrenic patients, yet some researchers argue that insight into the illness does not increase suicide risk. Protective factors play also an important role in assessing suicide risk and should also be carefully evaluated. The neurobiological perspective offers a new approach for understanding self-destructive behavior among patients with schizophrenia and may improve the accuracy of screening schizophrenics for suicide. Although, there is general consensus on the risk factors, accurate knowledge as well as early recognition of patients at risk is still lacking in everyday clinical practice. Better knowledge may help clinicians and caretakers to implement preventive measures. This review paper is the results of a joint effort between researchers in the field of suicide in schizophrenia. Each expert provided a brief essay on one specific aspect of the problem. This is the first attempt to present a consensus report as well as the development of a set of guidelines for reducing suicide risk among schizophenia patients

Evidence-Based Treatment and Supervision Practices for Co-Occurring Mental and Substance Use Disorders in the Criminal Justice System

Over seven million persons in the United States are supervised by the criminal justice system, including many who have co-occurring mental and substance use disorders (CODs). This population is at high risk for recidivism and presents numerous challenges to those working in the justice system. Objectives: To provide a contemporary review of the existing research and examine key issues and evidence-based treatment and supervision practices related to CODs in the justice system. Methods: We reviewed COD research involving offenders that has been conducted over the past 20 years and provide an analysis of key findings. Results: Several empirically supported frameworks are available to guide services for offenders who have CODs, including Integrated Dual Disorders Treatment (IDDT), the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model, and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Evidence-based services include integrated assessment that addresses both sets of disorders and the risk for criminal recidivism. Although several evidence-based COD interventions have been implemented at different points in the justice system, there remains a significant gap in services for offenders who have CODs. Existing program models include Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT), day reporting centers, specialized community supervision teams, pre- and post-booking diversion programs, and treatment-based courts (e.g., drug courts, mental health courts, COD dockets). Jail-based COD treatment programs provide stabilization of acute symptoms, medication consultation, and triage to community services, while longer-term prison COD programs feature Modified Therapeutic Communities (MTCs). Conclusion: Despite the availability of multiple evidence-based interventions that have been implemented across diverse justice system settings, these services are not sufficiently used to address the scope of treatment and supervision needs among offenders with CODs

Nuclear IGF1R interacts with regulatory regions of chromatin to promote RNA Polymerase II recruitment and gene expression associated with advanced tumor stage

Internalization of ligand-activated type I IGF receptor (IGF1R) is followed by recycling to the plasma membrane, degradation or nuclear translocation. Nuclear IGF1R reportedly associates with clinical response to IGF1R inhibitory drugs, yet its role in the nucleus is poorly characterized. Here, we investigated the significance of nuclear IGF1R in clinical cancers and cell line models. In prostate cancers, IGF1R was predominantly membrane localized in benign glands, while malignant epithelium contained prominent internalized (nuclear/cytoplasmic) IGF1R, and nuclear IGF1R associated significantly with advanced tumor stage. Using ChIP-seq to assess global chromatin occupancy, we identified IGF1R-binding sites at or near transcription start sites of genes including JUN and FAM21, most sites coinciding with occupancy by RNA polymerase II (RNAPol2) and histone marks of active enhancers/promoters. IGF1R was inducibly recruited to chromatin, directly binding DNA and interacting with RNAPol2 to upregulate expression of JUN and FAM21, shown to mediate tumor cell survival and IGF-induced migration. IGF1 also enriched RNAPol2 on promoters containing IGF1R-binding sites. These functions were inhibited by IGF1/II-neutralizing antibody xentuzumab (BI 836845), or by blocking receptor internalization. We detected IGF1R on JUN and FAM21 promoters in fresh prostate cancers that contained abundant nuclear IGF1R, with evidence of correlation between nuclear IGF1R content and JUN expression in malignant prostatic epithelium. Taken together, these data reveal previously unrecognized molecular mechanisms through which IGFs promote tumorigenesis, with implications for therapeutic evaluation of anti-IGF drugs.Significance: These findings reveal a noncanonical nuclear role for IGF1R in tumorigenesis, with implications for therapeutic evaluation of IGF inhibitory drugs. Cancer Res; 78(13); 3497-509. ©2018 AACR

Nuclear IGF1R interacts with regulatory regions of chromatin to promote RNA Polymerase II recruitment and gene expression associated with advanced tumor stage

Internalization of ligand-activated type I IGF receptor (IGF1R) is followed by recycling to the plasma membrane, degradation or nuclear translocation. Nuclear IGF1R reportedly associates with clinical response to IGF1R inhibitory drugs, yet its role in the nucleus is poorly characterized. Here, we investigated the significance of nuclear IGF1R in clinical cancers and cell line models. In prostate cancers, IGF1R was predominantly membrane localized in benign glands, while malignant epithelium contained prominent internalized (nuclear/cytoplasmic) IGF1R, and nuclear IGF1R associated significantly with advanced tumor stage. Using ChIP-seq to assess global chromatin occupancy, we identified IGF1R-binding sites at or near transcription start sites of genes including JUN and FAM21, most sites coinciding with occupancy by RNA polymerase II (RNAPol2) and histone marks of active enhancers/promoters. IGF1R was inducibly recruited to chromatin, directly binding DNA and interacting with RNAPol2 to upregulate expression of JUN and FAM21, shown to mediate tumor cell survival and IGF-induced migration. IGF1 also enriched RNAPol2 on promoters containing IGF1R-binding sites. These functions were inhibited by IGF1/II-neutralizing antibody xentuzumab (BI 836845), or by blocking receptor internalization. We detected IGF1R on JUN and FAM21 promoters in fresh prostate cancers that contained abundant nuclear IGF1R, with evidence of correlation between nuclear IGF1R content and JUN expression in malignant prostatic epithelium. Taken together, these data reveal previously unrecognized molecular mechanisms through which IGFs promote tumorigenesis, with implications for therapeutic evaluation of anti-IGF drugs.Significance: These findings reveal a noncanonical nuclear role for IGF1R in tumorigenesis, with implications for therapeutic evaluation of IGF inhibitory drugs. Cancer Res; 78(13); 3497-509. ©2018 AACR