Sex differences in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and PTSD: Are gonadal hormones the link?

In this review, we describe the sex differences in prevalence, onset, symptom profiles and disease outcome that are evident in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Women with schizophrenia tend to exhibit less disease impairment than men; by contrast, women with post-traumatic stress disorder are more affected than men. The most likely candidates to explain these sex differences are gonadal hormones. This review details the clinical evidence that estradiol and progesterone are dysregulated in these psychiatric disorders. Notably, existing data on estradiol, and to a lesser extent, progesterone, suggest that low levels of these hormones may increase the risk of disease development and worsen symptom severity. We argue that future studies require a more inclusive, considered analysis of gonadal steroid hormones and the intricacies of the interactions between them, with methodological rigour applied, to enhance our understanding of the roles of steroid hormones in psychiatric disorders

The International Consortium Investigating Neurocognition in Bipolar Disorder (ICONICâ BD)

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/148257/1/bdi12748.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/148257/2/bdi12748_am.pd

Transdiagnostic subgroups of cognitive impairment in early affective and psychotic illness

Cognitively impaired and spared patient subgroups were identified in psychosis and depression, and in clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR). Studies suggest differences in underlying brain structural and functional characteristics. It is unclear whether cognitive subgroups are transdiagnostic phenomena in early stages of psychotic and affective disorder which can be validated on the neural level. Patients with recent-onset psychosis (ROP; N = 140; female = 54), recent-onset depression (ROD; N = 130; female = 73), CHR (N = 128; female = 61) and healthy controls (HC; N = 270; female = 165) were recruited through the multi-site study PRONIA. The transdiagnostic sample and individual study groups were clustered into subgroups based on their performance in eight cognitive domains and characterized by gray matter volume (sMRI) and resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) using support vector machine (SVM) classification. We identified an impaired subgroup (NROP = 79, NROD = 30, NCHR = 37) showing cognitive impairment in executive functioning, working memory, processing speed and verbal learning (all p < 0.001). A spared subgroup (NROP = 61, NROD = 100, NCHR = 91) performed comparable to HC. Single-disease subgroups indicated that cognitive impairment is stronger pronounced in impaired ROP compared to impaired ROD and CHR. Subgroups in ROP and ROD showed specific symptom- and functioning-patterns. rsFC showed superior accuracy compared to sMRI in differentiating transdiagnostic subgroups from HC (BACimpaired = 58.5%; BACspared = 61.7%, both: p < 0.01). Cognitive findings were validated in the PRONIA replication sample (N = 409). Individual cognitive subgroups in ROP, ROD and CHR are more informative than transdiagnostic subgroups as they map onto individual cognitive impairment and specific functioning- and symptom-patterns which show limited overlap in sMRI and rsFC. Clinical trial registry name: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS). Clinical trial registry URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/. Clinical trial registry number: DRKS00005042

Affective cognition in bipolar disorder: A systematic review by the ISBD targeting cognition task force

Background: Impairments in affective cognition are part of the neurocognitive profile and possible treatment targets in bipolar disorder (BD), but the findings are heterogeneous. The International Society of Bipolar Disorder (ISBD) Targeting Cognition Task Force conducted a systematic review to (i) identify the most consistent findings in affective cognition in BD, and (ii) provide suggestions for affective cognitive domains for future study and meta‐analyses.Methods: The review included original studies reporting behavioral measures of affective cognition in BD patients vs controls following the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychInfo from inception until November 2018.Results: A total of 106 articles were included (of which nine included data for several affective domains); 41 studies assessed emotional face processing; 23 studies investigated reactivity to emotional words and images; 3 investigated explicit emotion regulation; 17 assessed implicit emotion regulation; 31 assessed reward processing and affective decision making. In general, findings were inconsistent. The most consistent findings were trait‐related difficulties in facial emotion recognition and implicit emotion regulation, and impairments in reward processing and affective decision making during mood episodes. Studies using eye‐tracking and facial emotion analysis revealed subtle trait‐related abnormalities in emotional reactivity.Conclusion: The ISBD Task Force recommends facial expression recognition, implicit emotion regulation, and reward processing as domains for future research and meta‐analyses. An important step to aid comparability between studies in the field would be to reach consensus on an affective cognition test battery for BD

Efficacy and safety of established and off-label ADHD drug therapies for cognitive impairment or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in bipolar disorder: A systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force

BACKGROUND: Abnormalities in dopamine and norepinephrine signaling are implicated in cognitive impairments in bipolar disorder (BD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force therefore aimed to investigate the possible benefits on cognition and/or ADHD symptoms and safety of established and off-label ADHD therapies in BD. METHODS: We included studies of ADHD medications in BD patients, which involved cognitive and/or safety measures. We followed the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO from inception until June 2023. Two authors reviewed the studies independently using the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for Randomized trials. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were identified (N = 2136), investigating armodafinil (k = 4, N = 1581), methylphenidate (k = 4, N = 84), bupropion (k = 4, n = 249), clonidine (k = 1, n = 70), lisdexamphetamine (k = 1, n = 25), mixed amphetamine salts (k = 1, n = 30), or modafinil (k = 2, n = 97). Three studies investigated cognition, four ADHD symptoms, and 10 the safety. Three studies found treatment-related ADHD symptom reduction: two involved methylphenidate and one amphetamine salts. One study found a trend towards pro-cognitive effects of modafinil on some cognitive domains. No increased risk of (hypo)mania was observed. Five studies had low risk of bias, eleven a moderate risk, and one a serious risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Methylphenidate or mixed amphetamine salts may improve ADHD symptoms in BD. However, there is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness on cognition. The medications produced no increased mania risk when used alongside mood stabilizers. Further robust studies are needed to assess cognition in BD patients receiving psychostimulant treatment alongside mood stabilizers

A sensorimotor control framework for understanding emotional communication and regulation

JHGW and CFH are supported by the Northwood Trust. TEVR was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship (1088785). RP and MW were supported by the the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Cognition and its Disorders (CE110001021)Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Thinking, perceiving and regulating feeling: an investigation of neurocognition, social cognition andemotion regulation in bipolar disorder

This research comprehensively explored neurocognitive, social cognitive and emotion regulation features of bipolar disorder. It better characterised the profiles of these domains of function and provided an improved understanding of the intricate processes within them, as well as an understanding of their genetic aetiology, shared relationships, and their psychosocial consequences. The findings of this research support assertions that people with the disorder experience cognitive and emotion regulation deficits that meaningfully contribute to psychosocial dysfunction. They also suggest that there may be inherent overlap in brain processes underlying neurocognition and social cognition. Overall, this research has advanced the understanding of bipolar disorder, and it will ultimately contribute to better outcomes for people who experience it by increasing scientific knowledge in the field

Objective and subjective psychosocial functioning in bipolar disorder: An investigation of the relative importance of neurocognition, social cognition and emotion regulation

Background People with bipolar disorder (BD) experience significant psychosocial impairment. Understandings of the nature and causes of such impairment is limited by the lack of research exploring the extent to which subjectively reported functioning should be valued as an indicator of objective dysfunction, or examining the relative influence of neurocognition, social cognition and emotion regulation on these important, but different aspects of psychosocial functioning in the context of mania and depression symptoms. This study aimed to address this paucity of research by conducting a comprehensive investigation of psychosocial functioning in a well characterised group of BD patients. Methods Fifty-one BD patients were compared to 52 healthy controls on objectively and subjectively assessed psychosocial outcomes. Relationships between current mood symptoms, psychosocial function and neurocognitive, social cognitive and emotion regulation measures were also examined in the patient group. Results Patients had significantly worse scores on the global objective and subjective functioning measures relative to controls. In the patient group, although these scores were correlated, regression analyses showed that variance in each of the measures was explained by different predictors. Depressive symptomatology was the most important predictor of global subjective functioning, and neurocognition had a concurrent and important influence with depressive symptoms on objective psychosocial function. Emotion regulation also had an indirect effect on psychosocial functioning via its influence on depressive symptomatology. Limitations As this study was cross-sectional in nature, we are unable to draw precise conclusions regarding contributing pathways involved in psychosocial functioning in BD. Conclusions These results suggest that patients' own evaluations of their subjective functioning represent important indicators of the extent to which their observable function is impaired. They also highlight the importance of incorporating cognitive and emotion regulation assessments into clinical practice when working to reduce psychosocial dysfunction with patients diagnosed with BD