EPICOG-SCH: A brief battery to screen cognitive impact of schizophrenia in stable outpatients

Brief batteries in schizophrenia, are needed to screen for the cognitive impact of schizophrenia. We aimed to validate and co-norm the Epidemiological Study of Cognitive Impairment in Schizophrenia (EPICOG-SCH) derived brief cognitive battery. A cross-sectional outpatient evaluation was conducted of six-hundred-seventy-two patients recruited from 234 centers. The brief battery included well-known subtests available worldwide that cover cognitive domains related to functional outcomes: WAIS-III-Letter-Number-Sequencing-LNS, Category Fluency Test-CFT, Logical-Memory Immediate Recall-LM, and Digit-Symbol-Coding-DSC. CGI-SCH Severity and WHO-DAS-S were used to assess clinical severity and functional impairment, respectively. Unit Composite Score (UCS) and functional regression-weighted Composite Scores (FWCS) were obtained; discriminant properties of FWCS to identify patients with different levels of functional disability were analyzed using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) technique. The battery showed good internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha = 0.78. The differences between cognitive performance across CGI-SCH severity level subscales ranged from 0.5 to 1 SD. Discriminant capacity of the battery in identifying patients with up to moderate disability levels showed fair discriminant accuracy with areas under the curve (AUC) > 0.70, p < 0.0001. An FWCS mean cut-off score ≥ 100 showed likelihood ratios (LR) up to 4.7, with an LR+ of 2.3 and a LR− of 0.5. An FWCS cut-off ≥ 96 provided the best balance between sensitivity (0.74) and specificity (0.62). The EPICOG-SCH proved to be a useful brief tool to screen for the cognitive impact of schizophrenia, and its regression-weighted Composite Score was an efficient complement to clinical interviews for confirming patients' potential functional outcomes and can be useful for monitoring cognition during routine outpatient follow-up visits

What factors should we modify to promote high functioning and prevent functional decline in people with schizophrenia?

BackgroundSince research in schizophrenia mainly focuses on deficits and risk factors, we need studies searching for high-functioning protective factors. Thus, our objective was to identify protective (PFs) and risk factors (RFs) separately associated with high (HF) and low functioning (LF) in patients with schizophrenia.MethodsWe collected information (sociodemographic, clinical, psychopathological, cognitive, and functional) from 212 outpatients with schizophrenia. Patients were classified according to their functional level (PSP) as HF (PSP &gt; 70, n = 30) and LF (PSP ≤ 50, n = 95). Statistical analysis consisted of Chi-square test, Student’s t-test, and logistic regression.ResultsHF model: variance explained: 38.4–68.8%; PF: years of education (OR = 1.227). RFs: receiving a mental disability benefit (OR = 0.062) and scores on positive (OR = 0.719), negative-expression (OR = 0.711), and negative-experiential symptoms (OR = 0.822), and verbal learning (OR = 0.866). LF model: variance explained: 42.0–56.2%; PF: none; RFs: not working (OR = 6.900), number of antipsychotics (OR = 1.910), and scores on depressive (OR = 1.212) and negative-experiential symptoms (OR = 1.167).ConclusionWe identified specific protective and risk factors for high and low functioning in patients with schizophrenia and confirmed that high functioning factors are not necessarily the opposite of those associated with low functioning. Only negative experiential symptoms are a shared and inverse factor for high and low functioning. Mental health teams must be aware of protective and risk factors and try to enhance or reduce them, respectively, to help their patients improve or maintain their level of functioning

Inverse association between negative symptoms and body mass index in chronic schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether negative symptoms, such as poor motivation or anhedonia, were associated with higher body mass index (BMI) in stable patients with schizophrenia chronically treated with antipsychotic medication. METHODS: 62 olanzapine- or clozapine-treated patients with illness duration of at least four years were selected from an international multicenter study on the characterization of negative symptoms. All participants completed the Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Bivariate correlations between BMI and negative symptoms (BNSS) were explored, as well as multiple regression analyses. We further explored the association of two principal component factors of the BNSS and BMI. Subsidiary analyses re-modeled the above using the negative symptoms subscale of the PANSS and the EMSLEY factor for negative symptoms for convergent validity. RESULTS: Lower negative symptoms (BNSS score) were associated with higher BMI (r=-0.31; p=0.015). A multiple regression analysis showed that negative symptoms (BNSS score) and age were significant predictors of BMI (p=0.037). This was mostly driven by the motivation/pleasure factor of the BNSS. Within this second factor, BMI was negatively associated with anhedonia (r=-0.254; p=0.046) and asociality (r=-0.253; p=0.048), but not avolition (r=-0.169; p=0.188). EMSLEY score was positively associated with BNSS (r=0.873, p<0.001), but negatively associated with BMI (r=-0.308; p=0.015). The association between PANSS and BMI did not reach significance (r=-224, p=0.080). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that lower negative symptoms were associated with higher BMI (assessed using both the BNSS and EMSLEY) in chronic stable schizophrenia patients, mostly due to lower anhedonia and asociality levels

Functional recovery in patients with schizophrenia: recommendations from a panel of experts

emission and encompasses multiple aspects of the patient's life, making it difficult to settle on a definition and to develop reliable assessment criteria. In this consensus process based on a panel of experts in schizophrenia, we aimed to provide useful insights on functional recovery and its involvement in clinical practice and clinical research. Methods: After a literature review of functional recovery in schizophrenia, a scientific committee of 8 members prepared a 75-item questionnaire, including 6 sections: (I) the concept of functional recovery (9 items), (II) assessment of functional recovery (23 items), (III) factors influencing functional recovery (16 items), (IV) psychosocial interventions and functional recovery (8 items), (V) pharmacological treatment and functional recovery (14 items), and (VI) the perspective of patients and their relatives on functional recovery (5 items). The questionnaire was sent to a panel of 53 experts, who rated each item on a 9-point Liken scale. Consensus was achieved in a 2-round Delphi dynamics, using the median (interquartile range) scores to consider consensus in either agreement (scores 7-9) or disagreement (scores 1-3). Items not achieving consensus in the first round were sent back to the experts for a second consideration. Results: After the two recursive rounds, consensus was achieved in 64 items (85.3%): 61 items (81.3%) in agreement and 3 (4.0%) in disagreement all of them from section II (assessment of functional recovery). Items not reaching consensus were related to the concepts of functional recovery (1 item, 13%), functional assessment (5 items, 6.7%), factors influencing functional recovery (3 items, 4.0%), and psychosocial interventions (2 items, 5.6%). Conclusions: Despite the lack of a well-defined concept of functional recovery, we identified a trend towards a common archetype of the definition and factors associated with functional recovery, as well as its applicability in clinical practice and clinical research.This project was funded by Janssen. The funding body participated in study design and data interpretation

The role of genetic variability in the GABRA6, 5-HTT and BDNF genes in anxiety-related traits

Objective:  The aims of this study were to test the individual association of the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4), the brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene (BDNF) and the GABAAα6 receptor subunit gene (GABRA6) with anxiety-related traits and to explore putative gene-gene interactions in a Spanish healthy sample. Method:  A sample of 937 individuals from the general population completed the Temperament and Character Inventory questionnaire to explore Harm Avoidance (HA) dimension; a subsample of 553 individuals also filled in the Big Five Questionnaire to explore the Neuroticism dimension. The whole sample was genotyped for the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism (SLC6A4 gene), the Val66Met polymorphism (BDNF gene) and the T1521C polymorphism (GABRA6 gene). Results:  Homozygous individuals for the T allele of the T1512C polymorphism presented slightly higher scores for HA than C allele carriers (F = 2.96, P = 0.019). In addition, there was a significant gene-gene interaction on HA between the 5-HTTLPR and Val66Met polymorphisms (F = 3.4, P = 0.009). Conclusion:  GABRA6 emerges as a candidate gene involved in the variability of HA. The effect of a significant gene-gene interaction between the SLC6A4 and BDNF genes on HA could explain part of the genetic basis underlying anxiety-related traits

Utility and validity of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) as a transdiagnostic scale

The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was originally conceived to assess psychopathology in several psychiatric disorders, making it an appropriate candidate to be used as a transdiagnostic instrument. We analyzed the utility and validity of the BPRS in a diagnostically heterogeneous sample of 600 psychiatric inpatients. As a comparator, we chose the mini-ICF-APP, a scale used to measure functioning and impairment across the diagnostic spectrum. Both scales had good internal consistency. The BPRS and the mini-ICF-APP showed a moderate correlation, with good levels of agreement. We were able to identify general symptoms present across the diagnostic spectrum, influencing severity and a cluster of symptoms specific for each diagnosis. Our results show the utility and validity of the BPRS as a transdiagnostic assessment tool that could easily be introduced in routine clinical work