Abstract
Current pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia employs drugs that interfere with dopamine neurotransmission, aiming to suppress acute exacerbation of psychosis and maintenance treatment ...to reduce the risk of psychosis recurrence. According to this treatment scheme, available psychotropic drugs intended to treat negative symptoms, cognitive impairment, or anxiety are administered as add-ons to treatment with antipsychotics. However, an alternative treatment scheme proposes a targeted or intermittent treatment approach, by which antipsychotic drugs are administered upon psychosis exacerbation and discontinued upon remission or stabilization, while negative symptoms, cognitive impairment, or anxiety are treated with specific psychotropics as monotherapy. Along these lines, antipsychotics are renewed only in the event of recurrence of psychotic symptoms. This 50-year-old debate between targeted and continuous treatment schemes arises from disagreements about interpreting scientific evidence and discordant views regarding benefit/risk assessment. Among the debate’s questions are: (1) what is the percentage of individuals who can maintain stability without antipsychotic maintenance treatment, and what is the percentage of those who exacerbate despite antipsychotic treatment? (2) how to interpret results of placebo-controlled 9- to 18-month-long maintenance trials in a life-long chronic disorder, and how to interpret results of the targeted trials, some of which are open label or not randomized; (3) how to weigh the decreased risk for psychotic recurrence vs the almost certainty of adverse effects on patient’s quality of life. Patients’ profiles, preferences, and circumstances of the care provision should be considered as the targeted vs continuous treatment options are considered.
Abstract Background Previous studies indicate that negative symptoms reflect a separable domain of pathology from other symptoms of schizophrenia. However, it is currently unclear whether negative ...symptoms themselves are multi-faceted, and whether sub-groups of patients who display unique negative symptom profiles can be identified. Methods A data-driven approach was used to examine the heterogeneity of negative symptom presentations in two samples: Study 1 included 199 individuals with schizophrenia assessed with a standard measure of negative symptoms and Study 2 included 169 individuals meeting criteria for deficit schizophrenia (i.e., primary and enduring negative symptoms) assessed with a specialized measure of deficit symptoms. Cluster analysis was used to determine whether different groups of patients with distinct negative symptoms profiles could be identified. Results Across both studies, we found evidence for two distinctive negative symptom sub-groups: one group with predominantly Avolition–Apathy (AA) symptoms and another with a predominantly Diminished Expression (DE) profile. Follow-up discriminant function analyses confirmed the validity of these groups. AA and DE negative symptom sub-groups significantly differed on clinically relevant external validators, including measures of functional outcome, premorbid adjustment, clinical course, disorganized symptoms, social cognition, sex, and ethnicity. Conclusions These results suggest that distinct subgroups of patients with elevated AA or DE can be identified within the broader diagnosis of schizophrenia and that these subgroups show clinically meaningful differences in presentation. Additionally, AA tends to be associated with poorer outcomes than DE, suggesting that it may be a more severe aspect of psychopathology.
With new data about different aspects of schizophrenia being continually generated, it becomes necessary to periodically revisit exactly what we know. Along with a need to review what we currently ...know about schizophrenia, there is an equal imperative to evaluate the construct itself. With these objectives, we undertook an iterative, multi-phase process involving fifty international experts in the field, with each step building on learnings from the prior one. This review assembles currently established findings about schizophrenia (construct, etiology, pathophysiology, clinical expression, treatment) and posits what they reveal about its nature. Schizophrenia is a heritable, complex, multi-dimensional syndrome with varying degrees of psychotic, negative, cognitive, mood, and motor manifestations. The illness exhibits a remitting and relapsing course, with varying degrees of recovery among affected individuals with most experiencing significant social and functional impairment. Genetic risk factors likely include thousands of common genetic variants that each have a small impact on an individual's risk and a plethora of rare gene variants that have a larger individual impact on risk. Their biological effects are concentrated in the brain and many of the same variants also increase the risk of other psychiatric disorders such as bipolar disorder, autism, and other neurodevelopmental conditions. Environmental risk factors include but are not limited to urban residence in childhood, migration, older paternal age at birth, cannabis use, childhood trauma, antenatal maternal infection, and perinatal hypoxia. Structural, functional, and neurochemical brain alterations implicate multiple regions and functional circuits. Dopamine D-2 receptor antagonists and partial agonists improve psychotic symptoms and reduce risk of relapse. Certain psychological and psychosocial interventions are beneficial. Early intervention can reduce treatment delay and improve outcomes. Schizophrenia is increasingly considered to be a heterogeneous syndrome and not a singular disease entity. There is no necessary or sufficient etiology, pathology, set of clinical features, or treatment that fully circumscribes this syndrome. A single, common pathophysiological pathway appears unlikely. The boundaries of schizophrenia remain fuzzy, suggesting the absence of a categorical fit and need to reconceptualize it as a broader, multi-dimensional and/or spectrum construct.
New advances in the understanding of schizophrenia etiology, course, and treatment have increased interest on the part of patients, families, advocates, and professionals in the development of ...consensus-defined standards for clinical status and improvement, including illness remission and recovery. As demonstrated in the area of mood disorders, such standards provide greater clarity around treatment goals, as well as an improved framework for the design and comparison of investigational trials and the subsequent evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions. Unlike the approach to mood disorders, however, the novel application of the concept of standard outcome criteria to schizophrenia must reflect the wide heterogeneity of its long-term course and outcome, as well as the variable effects of different treatments on schizophrenia symptoms. As an initial step in developing operational criteria, an expert working group reviewed available definitions and assessment instruments to provide a conceptual framework for symptomatic, functional, and cognitive domains in schizophrenia as they relate to remission of illness. The first consensus-based operational criteria for symptomatic remission in schizophrenia are based on distinct thresholds for reaching and maintaining improvement, as opposed to change criteria, allowing for alignment with traditional concepts of remission in both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric illness. This innovative approach for standardizing the definition for outcome in schizophrenia will require further examination of its validity and utility, as well as future refinement, particularly in relation to psychosocial and cognitive function and dysfunction. These criteria should facilitate research and support a positive, longer-term approach to studying outcome in patients with schizophrenia.
The prognostic significance of competing constructs and operationalizations for brief psychotic episodes (acute and transient psychotic disorder ATPD, brief psychotic disorder BPD, brief intermittent ...psychotic symptoms BIPS, and brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms BLIPS) is unknown.
To provide a meta-analytical prognosis of the risk of psychotic recurrence in patients with remitted first-episode ATPD, BPD, BIPS, and BLIPS and in a benchmark group of patients with remitted first-episode schizophrenia (FES). We hypothesized a differential risk: FES > ATPD > BPD > BIPS > BLIPS.
The Web of Knowledge and Scopus databases were searched up to May 18, 2015; the articles identified were reviewed as well as citations of previous publications and results of a manual search of the reference lists of retrieved articles.
We included original articles that reported the risk of psychotic recurrence at follow-up for patients in remission from first-episode ATPD, BPD, BLIPS, BIPS, and FES.
Independent extraction by multiple observers. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and moderators were tested with meta-regression analyses, Bonferroni corrected. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 index. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and the Egger test.
Proportion of patients with baseline ATPD, BPD, BLIPS, and BIPS who had any psychotic recurrence at 6, 12, 24, and 36 or more months of follow-up.
Eighty-two independent studies comprising up to 11,133 patients were included. There was no prognostic difference in risk of psychotic recurrence between ATPD, BPD, BLIPS, and BIPS at any follow-up (P > .03). In the long-term analysis, risk of psychotic recurrence (reported as mean 95% CI) was significantly higher in the FES group (0.78 0.58-0.93 at 24 months and 0.84 0.70-0.94 at ≥ 36 months; P < .02 and P < .001, respectively) compared with the other 4 groups (0.39 0.32-0.47 at 24 months and 0.51 0.41-0.61 at ≥ 36 months). There were no publication biases. Sex and exposure to antipsychotic medication modulated the meta-analytical estimates (.002 < P < .03).
There are no prognostic differences in risk of psychotic recurrence between ATPD, BPD, BLIPS, and BIPS constructs of brief psychotic episodes. Conversely, there is consistent meta-analytical evidence for better long-term prognosis of brief psychotic episodes compared with remitted first-episode schizophrenia. These findings should influence the diagnostic practice and clinical services in the management of early psychosis.