ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite three decades of policy initiatives to improve integration of health care, delivery of health care in New Zealand remains fragmented, and health inequities persist for Maori and other high priority populations. An evidence base is needed to increase the chances of success with implementation of large-system transformation (LST) initiatives in a complex adaptive system. METHODS: This research aimed to identify key elements that support implementation of LST initiatives, and to investigate contextual factors that influence these initiatives. The realist logic of enquiry, nested within the macro framing of complex adaptive systems, formed the overall methodology for this research and involved five phases: theory gleaning from a local LST initiative, literature review, interviews, workshop, and online survey. NVivo software programme was used for thematic analysis of the interview, workshop, and the survey data. We identified key elements and explained variations in success (outcomes) by identifying mechanisms triggered by various contexts in which LST initiatives are implemented. RESULTS: The research found that a set of 10 key elements need to be present in the New Zealand health system to increase chances of success with implementation of LST initiatives. These are: (i) an alliancing way of working; (ii) a commitment to te Tiriti o Waitangi; (iii) an understanding of equity; (iv) clinical leadership and involvement; (v) involved people, whanau, and community; (vi) intelligent commissioning; (vii) continuous improvement; (viii) integrated health information; (ix) analytic capability; and (x) dedicated resources and time. The research identified five contextual factors that influenced implementation of LST initiatives: a history of working together, distributed leadership from funders, the maturity of Alliances, capacity and capability for improvement, and a continuous improvement culture. The research found that the key mechanism of trust is built and nurtured over time through sharing of power by senior health leaders by practising distributed leadership, which then creates a positive history of working together and increases the maturity of Alliances. DISCUSSION: Two authors (KMS and PBJ) led the development and implementation of the local LST initiative. This prior knowledge and experience provided a unique perspective to the research but also created a conflict of interest and introduced potential bias, these were managed through a wide range of data collection methods and informed consent from participants. The evidence-base for successful implementation of LST initiatives produced in this research contains knowledge and experience of senior system leaders who are often in charge of leading these initiatives. This evidence base enables decision makers to make sense of complex processes involved in the successful implementation of LST initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: Use of informal trust-based networks provided a critical platform for successful implementation of LST initiatives in the New Zealand health system. Maturity of these networks relies on building and sustaining high-trust relationships among the network members. The role of local and central agencies and the government is to provide the policy settings and conditions in which trust-based networks can flourish. OTHER: This study was approved by the Victoria University of Wellington Human Ethics Committee (Ethics Approval Number 27,356). The research was supported by the Victoria University of Wellington research grant (222,809) and from the University of Auckland Department of Medicine research fund (H10779).
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care , Government Programs , Humans , Government , New Zealand , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administrationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Increasing numbers of young people attending university has raised concerns about the capacity of student mental health services to support them. We conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to explore whether provision of an 8 week mindfulness course adapted for university students (Mindfulness Skills for Students-MSS), compared with university mental health support as usual (SAU), reduced psychological distress during the examination period. Here, we conduct an economic evaluation of MSS+SAU compared with SAU. DESIGN AND SETTING: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic, parallel, single-blinded RCT comparing provision of MSS+SAU to SAU. PARTICIPANTS: 616 university students randomised. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the university counselling service. Costs relate to staff time required to deliver counselling service offerings. QALYs were derived from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Dimension 6 Dimension (CORE-6D) preference based tool, which uses responses to six items of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM; primary clinical outcome measure). Primary follow-up duration was 5 and 7 months for the two recruitment cohorts. RESULTS: It was estimated to cost £1584 (2022 prices) to deliver an MSS course to 30 students, £52.82 per student. Both costs (adjusted mean difference: £48, 95% CI £40-£56) and QALYs (adjusted mean difference: 0.014, 95% CI 0.008 to 0.021) were significantly higher in the MSS arm compared with SAU. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £3355, with a very high (99.99%) probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: MSS leads to significantly improved outcomes at a moderate additional cost. The ICER of £3355 per QALY suggests that MSS is cost-effective when compared with the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds of £20 000 per QALY. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615001160527.
Subject(s)
Mindfulness , Psychological Distress , Adolescent , Humans , Australia , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Quality of Life , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Students/psychology , Universities , Young AdultABSTRACT
Introduction: Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are widely used to prevent mental ill-health that is becoming the leading global cause of morbidity. Evidence suggests beneficial average effects but wide variability. We aimed to confirm the effect of MBPs on psychological distress, and to understand whether and how baseline distress, gender, age, education, and dispositional mindfulness modify the effect of MBPs on distress among adults in non-clinical settings. Methods: We conducted a pre-registered systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42020200117). Thirteen databases were searched in December 2020 for randomised controlled trials satisfying a quality threshold and comparing in-person, expert-defined MBPs in non-clinical settings with passive control groups. Two researchers independently selected, extracted, and appraised trials using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool (RoB2). Anonymised IPD of eligible trials were sought from collaborating authors. The primary outcome was psychological distress (unpleasant mental or emotional experiences including anxiety and depression) at 1 to 6 months after programme completion. Data were checked and imputed if missing. Pairwise, random-effects, two-stage IPD meta-analyses were conducted. Effect modification analyses followed a within-studies approach. Public and professional stakeholders were involved in the planning, conduct and dissemination of this study. Results: Fifteen trials were eligible, 13 trialists shared IPD (2,371 participants representing 8 countries, median age 34 years-old, 71% women, moderately distressed on average, 20% missing outcome data). In comparison with passive control groups, MBPs reduced average distress between one- and six-months post-intervention with a small to moderate effect size (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to -0.24; p-value < 0.001; 95% prediction interval (PI) -0.41 to -0.24 (no heterogeneity)). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses, and similar for the other psychological distress time point ranges. Confidence in the primary outcome result is high. We found no clear indication that this effect is modified by baseline psychological distress, gender, age, education level, or dispositional mindfulness. Conclusions: Group-based teacher-led MBPs generally reduce psychological distress among community adults who volunteer to receive this type of intervention. More research is needed to identify sources of variability in outcomes at an individual level.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: With mental ill health listed as a top cause of global disease burden, there is an urgent need to prioritise mental health promotion programmes. Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are being widely implemented to reduce stress in non-clinical settings. In a recent aggregate-level meta-analysis we found that, compared with no intervention, these MBPs reduce average psychological distress. However, heterogeneity between studies impedes generalisation of effects across every setting. Study-level effect modifiers were insufficient to reduce heterogeneity; studying individual-level effect modifiers is warranted. This requires individual participant data (IPD) and larger samples than those found in existing individual trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose an IPD meta-analysis. Our primary aim is to see if, and how, baseline psychological distress, gender, age, education and dispositional mindfulness moderate the effect of MBPs on distress. We will search 13 databases for good-quality randomised controlled trials comparing in-person, expert-defined MBPs in non-clinical settings with passive controls. Two researchers will independently select, extract and appraise trials using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Anonymised IPD of eligible trials will be sought from authors, who will be invited to collaborate.The primary outcome will be psychological distress measured using psychometrically validated questionnaires at 1-6 months after programme completion. Pairwise random-effects two-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted. Moderator analyses will follow a 'deft' approach. We will estimate subgroup-specific intervention effects. Secondary outcomes and sensitivity analyses are prespecified. Multiple imputation strategies will be applied to missing data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The findings will refine our knowledge on the effectiveness of MBPs and help improve the targeting of MBPs in non-clinical settings. They will be shared in accessible formats with a range of stakeholders. Public and professional stakeholders are being involved in the planning, conduct and dissemination of this project. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020200117.
Subject(s)
Mindfulness , Adult , Data Analysis , Health Promotion , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
Background: Mental health policy makers require evidence-based information to optimise effective care provision based on local need, but tools are unavailable. Aims: To develop and validate a population-level prediction model for need for early intervention in psychosis (EIP) care for first-episode psychosis (FEP) in England up to 2025, based on epidemiological evidence and demographic projections. Method: We used Bayesian Poisson regression to model small-area-level variation in FEP incidence for people aged 16-64 years. We compared six candidate models, validated against observed National Health Service FEP data in 2017. Our best-fitting model predicted annual incidence case-loads for EIP services in England up to 2025, for probable FEP, treatment in EIP services, initial assessment by EIP services and referral to EIP services for 'suspected psychosis'. Forecasts were stratified by gender, age and ethnicity, at national and Clinical Commissioning Group levels. Results: A model with age, gender, ethnicity, small-area-level deprivation, social fragmentation and regional cannabis use provided best fit to observed new FEP cases at national and Clinical Commissioning Group levels in 2017 (predicted 8112, 95% CI 7623-8597; observed 8038, difference of 74 [0.92%]). By 2025, the model forecasted 11 067 new treated cases per annum (95% CI 10383-11740). For every 10 new treated cases, 21 and 23 people would be assessed by and referred to EIP services for suspected psychosis, respectively. Conclusions: Our evidence-based methodology provides an accurate, validated tool to inform clinical provision of EIP services about future population need for care, based on local variation of major social determinants of psychosis.
Subject(s)
Early Medical Intervention , Mental Health Services , Needs Assessment , Psychotic Disorders/epidemiology , Psychotic Disorders/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Bayes Theorem , England/epidemiology , Female , Forecasting/methods , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Referral and Consultation , Reproducibility of Results , State Medicine , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for mental health promotion in nonclinical settings. Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are being widely implemented to reduce stress, but a comprehensive evidence synthesis is lacking. We reviewed trials to assess whether MBPs promote mental health relative to no intervention or comparator interventions. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Following a detailed preregistered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42018105213) developed with public and professional stakeholders, 13 databases were searched to August 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining in-person, expert-defined MBPs in nonclinical settings. Two researchers independently selected, extracted, and appraised trials using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool 2.0. Primary outcomes were psychometrically validated anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and mental well-being questionnaires at 1 to 6 months after programme completion. Multiple testing was performed using p < 0.0125 (Bonferroni) for statistical significance. Secondary outcomes, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were prespecified. Pairwise random-effects multivariate meta-analyses and prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated. A total of 11,605 participants in 136 trials were included (29 countries, 77% women, age range 18 to 73 years). Compared with no intervention, in most but not all scenarios MBPs improved average anxiety (8 trials; standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to -0.33; p-value < 0.001; 95% PI -1.19 to 0.06), depression (14 trials; SMD = -0.53; 95% CI -0.72 to -0.34; p-value < 0.001; 95% PI -1.14 to 0.07), distress (27 trials; SMD = -0.45; 95% CI -0.58 to -0.31; p-value < 0.001; 95% PI -1.04 to 0.14), and well-being (9 trials; SMD = 0.33; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54; p-value = 0.003; 95% PI -0.29 to 0.94). Compared with nonspecific active control conditions, in most but not all scenarios MBPs improved average depression (6 trials; SMD = -0.46; 95% CI -0.81 to -0.10; p-value = 0.012, 95% PI -1.57 to 0.66), with no statistically significant evidence for improving anxiety or distress and no reliable data on well-being. Compared with specific active control conditions, there is no statistically significant evidence of MBPs' superiority. Only effects on distress remained when higher-risk trials were excluded. USA-based trials reported smaller effects. MBPs targeted at higher-risk populations had larger effects than universal MBPs. The main limitation of this review is that confidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is moderate to very low, mainly due to inconsistency and high risk of bias in many trials. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with taking no action, MBPs of the included studies promote mental health in nonclinical settings, but given the heterogeneity between studies, the findings do not support generalisation of MBP effects across every setting. MBPs may have specific effects on some common mental health symptoms. Other preventative interventions may be equally effective. Implementation of MBPs in nonclinical settings should be partnered with thorough research to confirm findings and learn which settings are most likely to benefit.
Subject(s)
Health Promotion , Mental Disorders/prevention & control , Mindfulness , Adult , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
Psychological distress persisting for weeks or more promotes pro-inflammatory immune dysregulation, a risk factor for a range of chronic diseases. We have recently shown that mindfulness training reduces distress among university students. Here we present an exploratory trial to study immune dysregulation in a cohort of students who were exposed to progressively greater stress as the exam period approached, and to explore whether mindfulness training mitigated this dysregulation. Healthy University of Cambridge students were randomised to join an 8-week mindfulness course (N = 27), or to mental health support as usual (N = 27). Psychological distress, immune cell proportions, cytokines, CRP and serum cortisol were measured at baseline and during the exam period. Increased distress was associated with statistically significant increases in the proportion of B cells, regardless of trial arm (*p = 0.027). There were no other associations between any of the measured parameters, distress or mindfulness. Our finding that the proportion of B cells increases with psychological distress supports the findings of other studies. However, we found no evidence that mindfulness training is able to buffer the effects of psychological distress on healthy participants' immune system. In order to detect these effects, should they exist, larger randomised trials will be required.
Subject(s)
Immune System/immunology , Stress, Psychological/immunology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Students, Medical/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , B-Lymphocytes/immunology , Cohort Studies , Cytokines/immunology , Female , Humans , Hydrocortisone/immunology , Mental Health , Mindfulness/methods , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: University students are expressing an increased need for mental health support. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are being integrated into university stress-reduction programmes globally. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing MBI effects on university students' mental and physical health. METHODS: We searched nine databases, including grey literature and trial registries. Two independent reviewers extracted data following a prospective public protocol. RESULTS: Fifty-one RCTs were included. In comparison with passive controls, and when measured shortly after intervention completion, MBIs improve distress, anxiety, depression, well-being, rumination, and mindfulness with small to moderate effect sizes, with no benefit found for blood pressure, sleep, life satisfaction, resilience, worry, and thought suppression. Evidence for self-compassion is inconclusive. Effects last beyond three months for distress and mindfulness, with no data on other outcomes. Compared with active control groups, MBIs significantly improve distress and state anxiety, but not mindfulness, depression, well-being, affect, trait anxiety, or emotion regulation. Results were robust to adjustment for multiple testing, but RCTs' risk of bias is generally high. Moderator analyses did not find differential intervention effects according to intervention duration, delivery mode, or sub-populations. CONCLUSIONS: MBIs may be helpful to students but higher-quality research is needed.
Subject(s)
Behavioral Symptoms/therapy , Mindfulness , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Students , Universities , Adult , Humans , Mindfulness/statistics & numerical data , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Students/statistics & numerical data , Universities/statistics & numerical data , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The rising number of young people going to university has led to concerns about an increasing demand for student mental health services. We aimed to assess whether provision of mindfulness courses to university students would improve their resilience to stress. METHODS: We did this pragmatic randomised controlled trial at the University of Cambridge, UK. Students aged 18 years or older with no severe mental illness or crisis (self-assessed) were randomly assigned (1:1), via remote survey software using computer-generated random numbers, to receive either an 8 week mindfulness course adapted for university students (Mindfulness Skills for Students [MSS]) plus mental health support as usual, or mental health support as usual alone. Participants and the study management team were aware of group allocation, but allocation was concealed from the researchers, outcome assessors, and study statistician. The primary outcome was self-reported psychological distress during the examination period, as measured with the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), with higher scores indicating more distress. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12615001160527. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2015, and Jan 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 616 students to the MSS group (n=309) or the support as usual group (n=307). 453 (74%) participants completed the CORE-OM during the examination period and 182 (59%) MSS participants completed at least half of the course. MSS reduced distress scores during the examination period compared with support as usual, with mean CORE-OM scores of 0·87 (SD 0·50) in 237 MSS participants versus 1·11 (0·57) in 216 support as usual participants (adjusted mean difference -0·14, 95% CI -0·22 to -0·06; p=0·001), showing a moderate effect size (ß -0·44, 95% CI -0·60 to -0·29; p<0·0001). 123 (57%) of 214 participants in the support as usual group had distress scores above an accepted clinical threshold compared with 88 (37%) of 235 participants in the MSS group. On average, six students (95% CI four to ten) needed to be offered the MSS course to prevent one from experiencing clinical levels of distress. No participants had adverse reactions related to self-harm, suicidality, or harm to others. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that provision of mindfulness training could be an effective component of a wider student mental health strategy. Further comparative effectiveness research with inclusion of controls for non-specific effects is needed to define a range of additional, effective interventions to increase resilience to stress in university students. FUNDING: University of Cambridge and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England.
Subject(s)
Health Promotion/methods , Mindfulness , Resilience, Psychological , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Students/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Health Services , Program Evaluation , Student Health Services , Students/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom , Universities , Young AdultABSTRACT
For millennia, humans have focused their attention on the breath to develop mindfulness, but finding a scientific way to harness mindful breathing has proven elusive. Existing attempts to objectively measure and feedback on mindfulness have relied on specialist external hardware including electroencephalograms or respirometers that have been impractical for the majority of people learning to meditate. Consequently, training in the key skill of breath-awareness has lacked practical objective measures and guidance to enhance training. Here, we provide a brief technology report on an invention, The MindfulBreather® that addresses these issues. The technology is available to download embedded in a smartphone app that targets, measures and feedbacks on mindfulness of breathing in realtime to enhance training. The current article outlines only the technological concept with future studies quantifying efficacy, validity and reliability to be reported elsewhere. The MindfulBreather works by generating Motion Guided Mindfulness through interacting gyroscopic and touchscreen sensors in a three phase process: Mindfulness Induction (Phase I) gives standardized instruction to users to place their smartphone on their abdomen, breathe mindfully and to tap only at the peak of their inhalation. The smartphone's gyroscope detects periodic tilts during breathing to generate sinusoidal waveforms. Waveform-tap patterns are analyzed to determine whether the user is mindfully tapping only at the correct phase of the breathing cycle, indicating psychobiological synchronization. Mindfulness Maintenance (Phase II) provides reinforcing pleasant feedback sounds each time a breath is mindfully tapped at the right time, and the App records a mindful breath. Lastly, data-driven Insights are fed back to the user (Phase III), including the number of mindful breaths tapped and breathing rate reductions associated with parasympathetic engagement during meditation. The new MGM technology is then evaluated and contrasted with traditional mindfulness approaches and a novel Psychobiological Synchronization Model is proposed. In summary, unlike existing technology, the MindfulBreather requires no external hardware and repurposes regular smartphones to deliver app-embedded Motion-Guided Mindfulness. Technological applications include reducing mindwandering and down-regulation of the brain's default mode through enhanced mindful awareness. By objectively harnessing breath awareness, The MindfulBreather aims to realize the ancient human endeavor of mindfulness for the 21st century.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Levels of stress in UK university students are high, with an increase in the proportion of students seeking help in recent years. Academic pressure is reported as a major trigger. Mindfulness training has been shown to reduce stress and is popular among students, but its effectiveness in this context needs to be ascertained. In this pragmatic randomised controlled trial, we hypothesise that the provision of a preventative mindfulness intervention in universities could reduce students' psychological distress during the examination period (primary outcome), improve their resilience to stress up to at least 1â year later, reduce their use of mental health support services and improve academic performance. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: At least 550 University of Cambridge students free from active crises or severe mental illness will be randomised to joining an 8-week mindfulness course or to mental health provision as usual (one-to-one allocation rate). Psychological distress will be measured using the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure at baseline, postintervention, examination term and 1-year follow-up. Other outcomes are use of mental health services, inability to sit examinations or special circumstance requests, examination grades, well-being, altruism and coping measured with ecological momentary assessment. Outcome assessment and intention-to-treat primary analysis using linear mixed models adjusted for baseline scores will be blind to intervention allocation. We will also conduct per-protocol, subgroup and secondary outcome analyses. An Independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee will be set up. We will systematically monitor for, and react to, possible adverse events. An advisory reference group will comprise student representatives, members of the University Counselling Service and other student welfare staff. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been obtained from Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PRE.2015.060). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. A lay summary will be disseminated to a wider audience including other universities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615001160527; pre-results.
Subject(s)
Mindfulness/methods , Resilience, Psychological , Stress, Psychological/therapy , Students/psychology , Counseling , Humans , Mental Health/standards , Mental Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Research Design , Self Report , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom , UniversitiesABSTRACT
The human neuregulin-1 (NRG-1) gene is highly expressed in the brain, is implicated in numerous functions associated with neuronal development, and is a leading candidate gene for schizophrenia. The T allele of SNP8NRG243177, part of a risk haplotype for schizophrenia, has been previously associated with decreases in white matter in the right anterior internal capsule and the left anterior thalamic radiation. To our knowledge no studies have described the effects of SNP8NRG243177 on grey matter volume at a voxelwise level. We assessed associations between this SNP and brain structure in 79 general population volunteers from the Northern Finland 1966 Birth Cohort (NFBC 1966). We show, for the first time, that genetic variation in SNP8NRG243177 is associated with variation in frontal brain structure in both grey and white matter. T allele carriers showed decreased grey matter volume in several frontal gyri, including inferior, middle and superior frontal gyri and the anterior cingulate gyrus, as well as decreased white matter volume in the regions of the genu and body of the corpus callosum, anterior and superior corona radiata, anterior limb of the internal capsule and external capsule regions traversed by major white matter tracts of the anterior thalamic radiation, and the inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus. These results suggest that this genetic variant may mediate risk for schizophrenia, in part, through its effect on brain structure in these regions.
Subject(s)
Brain/anatomy & histology , Neuregulin-1/genetics , Adult , Alleles , Brain Mapping , Cognition/physiology , Cohort Studies , DNA/genetics , Female , Finland , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Genotype , Humans , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted , Intelligence Tests , Linear Models , Male , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide , Schizophrenia/pathology , Sex Characteristics , Thalamus/anatomy & histologyABSTRACT
Subjects at their first psychotic episode show an enlarged volume of the pituitary gland, but whether this is due to hypothalamicpituitaryadrenal (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 78age- and gender-matched healthy controls. In all, 18 patients were antipsychotic-free (12 of these were antipsychotic-naý¨ve), 26 werereceiving atypical antipsychotics, and 33 were receiving typical antipsychotics. As hypothesized, patients had a larger pituitary volume than controls (+22percent , p=0.001). When divided by antipsychotic treatment, and compared to controls, the pituitary volume was 15 percent larger in antipsychotic-free patients (p¼0.028), 17 percent larger in patients receiving atypicals (p¼0.01), and 30 percent 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 percent, p¼0.08). When divided by diagnosis, and compared to controls, the pituitary volume was 24 percent larger in patients with schizophrenia/schizophreniform disorder (n¼40, p=0.001), 19 percent larger in depressed patients (n¼13, p¼0.022), 16 percent larger in bipolar patients (n¼16, p¼0.037), and 12 percent larger in those with other psychoses (n¼9, p¼0.2). In conclusion, the first-episode of a psychotic disorder is associated with a larger pituitary independently of the presenceof antipsychotic treatment, and this could be due to activation of the HPA axis. Typical antipsychotics exert an additional enlarging effecton pituitary volume, likely to be related to activation of prolactin-secreting cells...
Subject(s)
Humans , Hypothalamus , Pituitary Gland , Adrenal Glands , Schizophrenia , Stress, Physiological , Mood DisordersABSTRACT
Typical antipsychotic drugs act on the dopaminergic system, blocking the dopamine type 2 (D2) receptors. Atypical antipsychotics have lower affinity and occupancy for the dopaminergic receptors, and a high degree of occupancy of the serotoninergic receptors 5-HT2A. Whether these different pharmacological actions produce different effects on brain structure remains unclear. We explored the effects of different types of antipsychotic treatment on brain structure in an epidemiologically based, nonrandomized sample of patients at the first psychotic episode. Subjects were recruited as part of a large epidemiological study (AESOP: aetiology and ethnicity in schizophrenia and other psychoses). We evaluated 22 drug-free patients, 32 on treatment with typical antipsychotics and 30 with atypical antipsychotics. We used high-resolution MRI and voxel-based methods of image analysis. The MRI analysis suggested that both typical and atypical antipsychotics are associated with brain changes. However, typicals seem to affect more extensively the basal ganglia (enlargement of the putamen) and cortical areas (reductions of lobulus paracentralis, anterior cingulate gyrus, superior and medial frontal gyri, superior and middle temporal gyri, insula, and precuneus), while atypical antipsychotics seem particularly associated with enlargement of the thalami. These changes are likely to reflect the effect of antipsychotics on the brain, as there were no differences in duration of illness, total symptoms scores, and length of treatment among the groups. In conclusion, we would like to suggest that even after short-term treatment, typical and atypical antipsychotics may affect brain structure differently.