Computerized cognitive and social cognition training in schizophrenia for impulsive aggression.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is associated with an elevated risk for impulsive aggression for which there are few psychosocial treatment options. Neurocognitive and social cognitive deficits have been associated with aggression with social cognitive deficits seemingly a more proximal contributor. The current study examined the effects of combining cognitive and social cognition treatment on impulsive aggression among inpatients with chronic schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder and a history of aggression compared to cognitive remediation treatment alone. METHODS: The two-center study randomized 130 participants to receive 36 sessions of either a combination of cognitive remediation and social cognition treatment or cognitive remediation plus a computer-based control. Participants had at least one aggressive incident within the past year or a Life History of Aggression (LHA) score of 5 or more. Participants completed measures of neurocognition, social cognition, symptom severity, and aggression at baseline and endpoint. RESULTS: Study participants were mostly male (84.5 %), had a mean age 34.9 years, and 11.5 years of education. Both Cognitive Remediation Training (CRT) plus Social Cognition Training (SCT) and CRT plus control groups were associated with significant reductions in aggression measures with no group differences except on a block of the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP), a behavioral task of aggression which favored the CRT plus SCT group. Both groups showed significant improvements in neurocognition and social cognition measures with CRT plus SCT being associated with greater improvements. CONCLUSION: CRT proved to be an effective non-pharmacological treatment in reducing impulsive aggression in schizophrenia inpatient participants with a history of aggressive episodes. The addition of social cognitive training did not enhance this anti-aggression treatment effect but did augment the CRT effect on cognitive functions, on emotion recognition and on mentalizing capacity of our participants.

Effects of Clozapine on Neurocognitive Functions in Schizophrenia: A Naturalistic Comparison to Non-clozapine Antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVE: While clozapine is recognized as the most effective antipsychotic for individuals with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, its effects on neurocognition remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the neurocognitive effects of clozapine treatment to those of non-clozapine antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and to examine the role of anticholinergic burden on cognitive impairments. DESIGN: This was a naturalistic study. Cross-sectional data were drawn from participants with chronic schizophrenia in two clinical trials assessing cognition. Cognition was evaluated using the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). Anticholinergic burden was calculated for each medication using the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) scoring system. We stratified the participants treated with non-clozapine antipsychotics into high ACB score versus low ACB score groups. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy participants were enrolled and treated with clozapine (n=58) or non-clozapine antipsychotics (n=112). We observed no significant differences in the MCCB T-scores between the clozapine and the total non-clozapine groups for the cognitive composite score and the seven domain scores. However, the non-clozapine high ACB group showed significant impairments in processing speed and attention/vigilance, in contrast to the non-clozapine low ACB group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results show that cognitive effects of clozapine might be no different from other antipsychotics. Negative effects on neurocognition in participants treated with antipsychotics with a high ACB score were related to their total ACB score.

Patient Perspective in the Development of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePROs) in Seizure Disorders: A Patient-Centric Approach.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) emphasizes the patient perspective and input to inform the research process with the aim to improve the quality of care. Given PCOR's emphasis on the patient perspective, methods to incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have been implemented successfully in many populations; however, many of these measurements do not incorporate patient perspective in the development of ePROs. For epilepsy and seizure disorders, user perspectives are key to developing measurements that capture real-time data, as seizures are not timed events; therefore, patients can wait days or even weeks and then try to recall their experience which can lead to variations in recall. ePRO can provide the necessary assurance that data were entered by the patient at the time the episode occurs. The aim of the present study was to assess patient perceptions of completing ePROs, expectations of ePRO devices for PCOR and on-site clinical visit in order to guide the development of successful ePRO deployment in seizure-related disorders. METHODS: This study used a naturalistic cohort design. A sample of 713 persons completed an online survey which consisted of 11 situational questions. Of the 713 individuals, results from 640 participants were included. Results were compared using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Most participants (71.9%) were able to accurately identify a seizure and 86.3% of participants felt it would be beneficial to have a short training on seizure symptoms prior to completing a daily seizure diary, and seizures should be reasonably reported within 10 mins (n = 426, 66.6%). Participants endorsed that repetitive movements and loss of consciousness as the most predominant symptoms they would look for in an ePRO. A majority of participants, 67.0% indicated that they regularly use accessibility features on using smartphones and tablets, and 38.6% indicated they would like to see more than one item per screen but only if they are related and to see all text in a larger size with scrolling features using fingers (n = 246; 38.4%). CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated the importance of developing ePROs that satisfy the needs of the participants and caregivers without compromising the scientific and clinical aspects of the disease construct. Developing tools using participant needs, observations, characteristics and input is essential to putting the participant perspective in patient-centered outcomes research.