Interview-based assessment of cognition is a strong predictor of quality of life in patients with schizophrenia and severe negative symptoms

Objective: To analyze the correlation between quality of life, symptoms, and cognition assessed by the interview-based Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS). Methods: Seventy-nine outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia were evaluated with the Quality of Life Scale – Brazilian version (QLS-BR), the SCoRS, and symptoms scales (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS]). After determining the potential explanatory variables using Spearman’s correlation and Student’s t test results, we ran simple, multivariate, and decision-tree regression analyses to assess the impact of SCoRS and PANSS ratings on mean overall quality of life. Results: Cognitive deficits and negative symptoms were the best predictors of quality of life. A low degree of negative symptoms (PANSS negative < 11) was a strong predictor of better quality of life (QLS ∼ 75), regardless of SCoRS rating. Among participants with more severe negative symptoms, elevated cognitive impairment (interviewer SCoRS ∼ 44) was a predictor of worse quality of life (QLS ∼ 44). Conclusions: Cognitive impairment determined by interview-based assessment seems to be a strong predictor of quality of life in subjects with severe negative symptoms. These results support the usefulness of SCoRS for cognitive assessment that is relevant to the everyday life of patients with schizophrenia.

Interview-based assessment of cognition is a strong predictor of quality of life in patients with schizophrenia and severe negative symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the correlation between quality of life, symptoms, and cognition assessed by the interview-based Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS). METHODS: Seventy-nine outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia were evaluated with the Quality of Life Scale - Brazilian version (QLS-BR), the SCoRS, and symptoms scales (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS]). After determining the potential explanatory variables using Spearman's correlation and Student's t test results, we ran simple, multivariate, and decision-tree regression analyses to assess the impact of SCoRS and PANSS ratings on mean overall quality of life. RESULTS: Cognitive deficits and negative symptoms were the best predictors of quality of life. A low degree of negative symptoms (PANSS negative < 11) was a strong predictor of better quality of life (QLS ∼ 75), regardless of SCoRS rating. Among participants with more severe negative symptoms, elevated cognitive impairment (interviewer SCoRS ∼ 44) was a predictor of worse quality of life (QLS ∼ 44). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive impairment determined by interview-based assessment seems to be a strong predictor of quality of life in subjects with severe negative symptoms. These results support the usefulness of SCoRS for cognitive assessment that is relevant to the everyday life of patients with schizophrenia.

Functional capacity: a new framework for the assessment of everyday functioning in schizophrenia.

Historically, measures of everyday functioning have focused exclusively on real-world performance. Despite the unquestionable value of "real-world functioning", it has become clear that instruments for its assessment might not be as accurate as desirable. Functional capacity is a domain of everyday functioning that can be assessed through performance-based measures. In the last decade, functional capacity has become a cornerstone for the assessment of everyday functioning, since, alongside measures of real-world functioning, it provides a much more comprehensive picture of functional outcomes than any measurement alone. Functional capacity is more stable and less vulnerable to influence from environmental factors than other domains, and its correlation with cognitive functions has encouraged the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) project to suggest that a performance-based measure of functional capacity be included as a co-primary assessment of cognition in clinical trials. Functional capacity assessment instruments may be also useful in the evaluation of remission in schizophrenia. Validation of these instruments in different countries is desirable, and should always include cross-cultural adaptation; within large countries, adjustment for regional variations should be considered.

Functional capacity: a new framework for the assessment of everyday functioning in schizophrenia

Historically, measures of everyday functioning have focused exclusively on real-world performance. Despite the unquestionable value of “real-world functioning”, it has become clear that instruments for its assessment might not be as accurate as desirable. Functional capacity is a domain of everyday functioning that can be assessed through performance-based measures. In the last decade, functional capacity has become a cornerstone for the assessment of everyday functioning, since, alongside measures of real-world functioning, it provides a much more comprehensive picture of functional outcomes than any measurement alone. Functional capacity is more stable and less vulnerable to influence from environmental factors than other domains, and its correlation with cognitive functions has encouraged the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) project to suggest that a performance-based measure of functional capacity be included as a co-primary assessment of cognition in clinical trials. Functional capacity assessment instruments may be also useful in the evaluation of remission in schizophrenia. Validation of these instruments in different countries is desirable, and should always include cross-cultural adaptation; within large countries, adjustment for regional variations should be considered.

Assessment of non-BDNF neurotrophins and GDNF levels after depression treatment with sertraline and transcranial direct current stimulation in a factorial, randomized, sham-controlled trial (SELECT-TDCS): an exploratory analysis.

The neurotrophic hypothesis of depression states that the major depressive episode is associated with lower neurotrophic factors levels, which increase with amelioration of depressive symptoms. However, this hypothesis has not been extended to investigate neurotrophic factors other than the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). We therefore explored whether plasma levels of neurotrophins 3 (NT-3) and 4 (NT-4), nerve growth factor (NGF) and glial cell line derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) changed after antidepressant treatment and correlated with treatment response. Seventy-three patients with moderate-to-severe, antidepressant-free unipolar depression were assigned to a pharmacological (sertraline) and a non-pharmacological (transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS) intervention in a randomized, 2 × 2, placebo-controlled design. The plasma levels of NT-3, NT-4, NGF and GDNF were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay before and after a 6-week treatment course and analyzed according to clinical response and allocation group. We found that tDCS and sertraline (separately and combined) produced significant improvement in depressive symptoms. Plasma levels of all neurotrophic factors were similar across groups at baseline and remained significantly unchanged regardless of the intervention and of clinical response. Also, baseline plasma levels were not associated with clinical response. To conclude, in this 6-week placebo-controlled trial, NT-3, NT-4, NGF and GDNF plasma levels did not significantly change with sertraline or tDCS. These data suggest that these neurotrophic factors are not surrogate biomarkers of treatment response or involved in the antidepressant mechanisms of tDCS.

Prevalence and burden of headaches as assessed by the health family program.

BACKGROUND: Unified health systems often have Family Health Programs (FHPs) as a core component of their preventive and early curative strategies. In Brazil, the FHP is established to proactively identify diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To use the FHP in order to assess the prevalence of primary headaches, as per the Second Edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders in a Brazilian city covered by the program, and to document the burden of migraine and tension-type headache (TTH) in this population. METHODS: FHP agents were trained on how to apply questionnaires that screened for the occurrence of headaches in the past year. Screening method had been previously validated. Respondents that screened positively were interviewed by a headache specialist, and all their headache types were classified. Additionally, disability (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale and Headache Impact Test) and health-related quality of life were assessed. RESULTS: The 1-year prevalence of migraine was 18.2% [95% confidence interval = 13.7; 23.5]. TTH occurred in 22.9% [18.0%; 28.6%]. Other primary headaches occurred in 10.8% of the participants. Idiopathic stabbing headache was significantly more common in individuals with migraine relative to those without migraine (44.7% vs 10.3%, P < .001). Contrasting with TTH, migraineurs had a mean of 3.1 headache types vs 1.9 in TTH (P < .001). Secondary headaches occurred in 21.7% of the participants over a 1-year period [16.9%; 27.3%]. Most cases were headaches attributed to infection (mostly respiratory). The impact of migraine was bimodal. Most sufferers had little impact, but a sizable minority was severely impaired. CONCLUSIONS: The FHP can be effectively used to bring individuals with headache to the attention of providers. Future investigations should assess whether this increased attention translates into improved outcomes.