Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives: Cognitive dysfunction is a core symptom dimension that cuts across the psychoses. Recent findings support classification of patients along the cognitive dimension using cluster analysis; however, data-derived groupings may be highly determined by sampling characteristics and the measures used to derive the clusters, and so their interpretability must be established. We examined cognitive clusters in a cross-diagnostic sample of patients with psychosis and associations with clinical and functional outcomes. We then compared our findings to a previous report of cognitive clusters in a separate sample using a different cognitive battery. Methods: Participants with affective or non-affective psychosis (n=120) and healthy controls (n=31) were administered the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, and clinical and community functioning assessments. Cluster analyses were performed on cognitive variables, and clusters were compared on demographic, cognitive, and clinical measures. Results were compared to findings from our previous report. Results: A four-cluster solution provided a good fit to the data; profiles included a neuropsychologically normal cluster, a globally impaired cluster, and two clusters of mixed profiles. Cognitive burden was associated with symptom severity and poorer community functioning. The patterns of cognitive performance by cluster were highly consistent with our previous findings. Conclusions: We found evidence of four cognitive subgroups of patients with psychosis, with cognitive profiles that map closely to those produced in our previous work. Clusters were associated with clinical and community variables and a measure of premorbid functioning, suggesting that they reflect meaningful groupings: replicable, and related to clinical presentation and functional outcomes. (JINS, 2018, 24, 382–390)

Background Evidence for efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in treatment of schizophrenia is growing. CBT is effective and cost efficient in treating positive and negative symptoms. To effectively meet the needs of diverse cultural groups, CBT needs to be adapted to the linguistic, cultural and socioeconomic context. We aimed to assess the feasibility, efficacy and acceptability of a culturally adapted CBT for treatment of psychosis (CaCBTp) in a low-income country. Methods Rater-blind, randomised, controlled trial of the use of standard duration CBT in patients with psychosis from a low-income country. Participants with a ICD-10 diagnosis of psychosis were assessed using Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for Schizophrenia (PANSS), Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales (PSYRATS), and the Schedule for Assessment of Insight (SAI) (baseline, 3 months and 6 months). They were randomized into the intervention group ( n  = 18) and Treatment As Usual (TAU) group ( n  = 18). The intervention group received 12 weekly sessions of CaCBTp. Results The CaCBTp group had significantly lower scores on PANSS Positive ( p  = 0.02), PANSS Negative ( p  = 0.045), PANSS General Psychopathology ( p  = 0.008) and Total PANSS ( p  = 0.05) when compared to TAU at three months. They also had low scores on Delusion Severity Total ( p  = 0.02) and Hallucination Severity Total ( p  = 0.04) of PSYRATS, as well as higher scores on SAI ( p  = 0.01) at the same time point. At six months only the improvement in PANSS positive scores ( p  = 0.045) met statistical significance.. Conclusions It is feasible to offer CaCBTp as an adjunct to TAU in patients with psychosis, presenting to services in a lower middle-income country. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02202694 (Retrospectively registered).

Subjects at their first psychotic episode show an enlarged volume of the pituitary gland, but whether this is due to hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis hyperactivity, or to stimulation of the prolactin-secreting cells by antipsychotic treatment, is unclear. We measured pituitary volume, using 1.5-mm, coronal, 1.5 T, high-resolution MRI images, in 78 patients at the first psychotic episode and 78 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. In all, 18 patients were antipsychotic-free (12 of these were antipsychotic-naïve), 26 were receiving atypical antipsychotics, and 33 were receiving typical antipsychotics. As hypothesized, patients had a larger pituitary volume than controls (+22%, p< 0.001). When divided by antipsychotic treatment, and compared to controls, the pituitary volume was 15% larger in antipsychotic-free patients (p=0.028), 17% larger in patients receiving atypicals (p=0.01), and 30% larger in patients receiving typicals (p<0.001). Patients receiving typicals not only had the largest pituitary volume compared to controls but also showed a trend for a larger pituitary volume compared to the other patients grouped together (+11%, p=0.08). When divided by diagnosis, and compared to controls, the pituitary volume was 24% larger in patients with schizophrenia/schizophreniform disorder (n=40, p<0.001), 19% larger in depressed patients (n=13, p=0.022), 16% larger in bipolar patients (n=16, p=0.037), and 12% larger in those with other psychoses (n=9, p=0.2). In conclusion, the first-episode of a psychotic disorder is associated with a larger pituitary independently of the presence of antipsychotic treatment, and this could be due to activation of the HPA axis. Typical antipsychotics exert an additional enlarging effect on pituitary volume, likely to be related to activation of prolactin-secreting cells. This activation of the hormonal stress response could participate to the important metabolic abnormalities observed in patients with psychosis.

The concept of schizophrenia only covers the 30% poor outcome fraction of a much broader multidimensional psychotic syndrome, yet paradoxically has become the dominant prism through which everything ‘psychotic’ is observed, even affective states with mild psychosis labelled ‘ultra-high risk’ (for schizophrenia). The inability of psychiatry to frame psychosis as multidimensional syndromal variation of largely unpredictable course and outcome – within and between individuals – hampers research and recovery-oriented practice. ‘Psychosis’ remains firmly associated with ‘schizophrenia’, as evidenced by a vigorous stream of high-impact but non-replicable attempts to ‘reverse-engineer’ the hypothesized biological disease entity, using case–control paradigms that cannot distinguish between risk for illness onset and risk for poor outcome. In this paper, the main issues surrounding the concept of schizophrenia are described. We tentatively conclude that with the advent of broad spectrum phenotypes covering autism and addiction in DSM5, the prospect for introducing a psychosis spectrum disorder – and modernizing psychiatry – appears to be within reach.

Background Functional somatic symptoms and disorders are common and complex phenomena involving both bodily and brain processes. They pose major challenges across medical specialties. These disorders are common and have significant impacts on patients’ quality of life and healthcare costs. Main body We outline five problems pointing to the need for a new classification: (1) developments in understanding aetiological mechanisms; (2) the current division of disorders according to the treating specialist; (3) failure of current classifications to cover the variety of disorders and their severity (for example, patients with symptoms from multiple organs systems); (4) the need to find acceptable categories and labels for patients that promote therapeutic partnership; and (5) the need to develop clinical services and research for people with severe disorders. We propose ‘functional somatic disorders’ (FSD) as an umbrella term for various conditions characterised by persistent and troublesome physical symptoms. FSDs are diagnosed clinically, on the basis of characteristic symptom patterns. As with all diagnoses, a diagnosis of FSD should be made after considering other possible somatic and mental differential diagnoses. We propose that FSD should occupy a neutral space within disease classifications, favouring neither somatic disease aetiology, nor mental disorder. FSD should be subclassified as (a) multisystem, (b) single system, or (c) single symptom. While additional specifiers may be added to take account of psychological features or co-occurring diseases, neither of these is sufficient or necessary to make the diagnosis. We recommend that FSD criteria are written so as to harmonise with existing syndrome diagnoses. Where currently defined syndromes fall within the FSD spectrum – and also within organ system-specific chapters of a classification – they should be afforded dual parentage (for example, irritable bowel syndrome can belong to both gastrointestinal disorders and FSD). Conclusion We propose a new classification, ‘functional somatic disorder’, which is neither purely somatic nor purely mental, but occupies a neutral space between these two historical poles. This classification reflects both emerging aetiological evidence of the complex interactions between brain and body and the need to resolve the historical split between somatic and mental disorders.

Abstract Current clinical phenomenological diagnosis in psychiatry neither captures biologically homologous disease entities nor allows for individualized treatment prescriptions based on neurobiology. In this report, we studied two large samples of cases with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, and bipolar I disorder with psychosis, presentations with clinical features of hallucinations, delusions, thought disorder, affective, or negative symptoms. A biomarker approach to subtyping psychosis cases (called psychosis Biotypes) captured neurobiological homology that was missed by conventional clinical diagnoses. Two samples (called “B-SNIP1” with 711 psychosis and 274 healthy persons, and the “replication sample” with 717 psychosis and 198 healthy persons) showed that 44 individual biomarkers, drawn from general cognition (BACS), motor inhibitory (stop signal), saccadic system (pro- and anti-saccades), and auditory EEG/ERP (paired-stimuli and oddball) tasks of psychosis-relevant brain functions were replicable (r’s from .96–.99) and temporally stable (r’s from .76–.95). Using numerical taxonomy (k-means clustering) with nine groups of integrated biomarker characteristics (called bio-factors) yielded three Biotypes that were virtually identical between the two samples and showed highly similar case assignments to subgroups based on cross-validations (88.5%–89%). Biotypes-1 and -2 shared poor cognition. Biotype-1 was further characterized by low neural response magnitudes, while Biotype-2 was further characterized by overactive neural responses and poor sensory motor inhibition. Biotype-3 was nearly normal on all bio-factors. Construct validation of Biotype EEG/ERP neurophysiology using measures of intrinsic neural activity and auditory steady state stimulation highlighted the robustness of these outcomes. Psychosis Biotypes may yield meaningful neurobiological targets for treatments and etiological investigations.

Cognitive dysfunction is a core feature of psychotic disorders; however, substantial variability exists both within and between subjects in terms of cognitive domains of dysfunction, and a clear 'profile' of cognitive strengths and weaknesses characteristic of any diagnosis or psychosis as a whole has not emerged. Cluster analysis provides an opportunity to group individuals using a data-driven approach rather than predetermined grouping criteria. While several studies have identified meaningful cognitive clusters in schizophrenia, no study to date has examined cognition in a cross-diagnostic sample of patients with psychotic disorders using a cluster approach. We aimed to examine cognitive variables in a sample of 167 patients with psychosis using cluster methods. Subjects with schizophrenia (n = 41), schizo-affective disorder (n = 53) or bipolar disorder with psychosis (n = 73) were assessed using a battery of cognitive and clinical measures. Cognitive data were analysed using Ward's method, followed by a K-means cluster approach. Clusters were then compared on diagnosis and measures of clinical symptoms, demographic variables and community functioning. A four-cluster solution was selected, including a 'neuropsychologically normal' cluster, a globally and significantly impaired cluster, and two clusters of mixed cognitive profiles. Clusters differed on several clinical variables; diagnoses were distributed amongst all clusters, although not evenly. Identification of groups of patients who share similar neurocognitive profiles may help pinpoint relevant neural abnormalities underlying these traits. Such groupings may also hasten the development of individualized treatment approaches, including cognitive remediation tailored to patients' specific cognitive profiles.

The value of the nosological distinction between non-affective and affective psychosis has frequently been challenged. We aimed to investigate the transdiagnostic dimensional structure and associated characteristics of psychopathology at First Episode Psychosis (FEP). Regardless of diagnostic categories, we expected that positive symptoms occurred more frequently in ethnic minority groups and in more densely populated environments, and that negative symptoms were associated with indices of neurodevelopmental impairment. This study included 2182 FEP individuals recruited across six countries, as part of the EUropean network of national schizophrenia networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) study. Symptom ratings were analysed using multidimensional item response modelling in Mplus to estimate five theory-based models of psychosis. We used multiple regression models to examine demographic and context factors associated with symptom dimensions. A bifactor model, composed of one general factor and five specific dimensions of positive, negative, disorganization, manic and depressive symptoms, best-represented associations among ratings of psychotic symptoms. Positive symptoms were more common in ethnic minority groups. Urbanicity was associated with a higher score on the general factor. Men presented with more negative and less depressive symptoms than women. Early age-at-first-contact with psychiatric services was associated with higher scores on negative, disorganized, and manic symptom dimensions. Our results suggest that the bifactor model of psychopathology holds across diagnostic categories of non-affective and affective psychosis at FEP, and demographic and context determinants map onto general and specific symptom dimensions. These findings have implications for tailoring symptom-specific treatments and inform research into the mood-psychosis spectrum.

Emil Kraepelin is well known due to his development of the psychiatric classification. The ICD-10 and DSM-IV classification is based on the dichotomy of endogenous psychoses into affective psychoses and schizophrenia as early as 1899. Moreover, beside his classification system he put enormous impact on the development of psychiatry to an empirical field of science. The research activities of Kraepelin and his coworkers show that he was not only the most active researcher in the field of psychiatry in his time but also that his research activities included a lot of clinical and experimental work in different disciplines of psychiatry, including psychology, pharmacology and natural sciences as ‘Hilfswissenschaften’. Due to his extraordinary position also in his time he brought together important researchers of this time, in particular after the foundation of a psychiatric research institute. Alois Alzheimer, Franz Nissl, Robert Gaupp, or Korbinian Brodman are only a few of his well known coworkers. Kraepelin tried to bring foreward the empirical knowledge in psychiatry, he did not want to have cessation in psychiatry in general and in the classification of psychiatric disorders in particular. He discussed and partly revisted his view and his theoretical approach in the different editions of his textbook according to the state of his empirical knowledge. This is also true for the dichotomy. More than twenty years after the 6th edition of his textbook, he wrote in an essay ‘Die Erscheinungsformen des Irreseins’ (‘The manifestations of insanity’) regarding the dichotomy: “No experienced diagnostician would deny that cases where it seems impossible to arrive to a clear decision, despite extremely careful observation, are unpleasantly frequent.” and “….therefore, the increasingly obvious impossibility to separate the two respective illnesses satisfactorily should raise the suspicion that our question is wrong”. This contribution shows that Kraepelin himself questioned his dichotomy of dementia praecox and manic depressive insanity, a discussion which is lively still today—more than 80 years later.