Predicting Long-Term Outcomes in First-Admission Psychosis: Does the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology Aid DSM in Prognostication?

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) is an empirical, dimensional model of psychological symptoms and functioning. Its goals are to augment the use and address the limitations of traditional diagnoses, such as arbitrary thresholds of severity, within-disorder heterogeneity, and low reliability. HiTOP has made inroads to addressing these problems, but its prognostic validity is uncertain. The present study sought to test the prediction of long-term outcomes in psychotic disorders was improved when the HiTOP dimensional approach was considered along with traditional (ie, DSM) diagnoses. We analyzed data from the Suffolk County Mental Health Project (N = 316), an epidemiologic study of a first-admission psychosis cohort followed for 20 years. We compared 5 diagnostic groups (schizophrenia/schizoaffective, bipolar disorder with psychosis, major depressive disorder with psychosis, substance-induced psychosis, and other psychoses) and 5 dimensions derived from the HiTOP thought disorder spectrum (reality distortion, disorganization, inexpressivity, avolition, and functional impairment). Both nosologies predicted a significant amount of variance in most outcomes. However, except for cognitive functioning, HiTOP showed consistently greater predictive power across outcomes-it explained 1.7-fold more variance than diagnoses in psychiatric and physical health outcomes, 2.1-fold more variance in community functioning, and 3.4-fold more variance in neural responses. Even when controlling for diagnosis, HiTOP dimensions incrementally predicted almost all outcomes. These findings support a shift away from the exclusive use of categorical diagnoses and toward the incorporation of HiTOP dimensions for better prognostication and linkage with neurobiology.

Reproducibility of Cognitive Profiles in Psychosis Using Cluster Analysis.

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).

Mood Symptoms in Stabilized Patients with Schizophrenia: A Bipolar Type with Predominant Psychotic Features?

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar disorder (BD) are traditionally distinguished on the basis of progressive deterioration and long-term outcome, but a more dimensional approach is warranted. There are limited data on the occurrence of manic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. The aim of the current study was to search for patterns in the clinical symptomatology, which may suggest the presence of one or several mood disorders under the label of schizophrenia. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Hundred-seventy-five patients diagnosed with schizophrenia according to DSM-5 were included in the study. The psychometric assessment included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Young Mania Rating Scale, The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and the Calgary Depression Scale. The statistical analysis included MANOVA, Pearson Correlation coefficient and principal components analysis. RESULTS: Significant subthreshold manic symptoms were present in 25.14% of patients. Mood symptoms correlated with positive symptoms. The PCA revealed a complex structure with 15 factors (one positive, negative, somatic, anxiety, neurocognitive, disorganization and manic, five depressive and three psychomotor/excitement/hostility/violence). CONCLUSION: Psychotic mood disorders are often phenotypically indistinguishable from schizophrenia, so it is likely that psychotic affective patients have been misdiagnosed with schizophrenia. The current study suggests that there seem to be patients with mania misdiagnosed as 'schizophrenics' because of the presence of psychotic features, a condition better described as 'schizophreniform bipolar disorder'.

Transdiagnostic Extension of Delusions: Schizophrenia and Beyond.

Delusion is central to the conceptualization, definition, and identification of schizophrenia. However, in current classifications, the presence of delusions is neither necessary nor sufficient for the diagnosis of schizophrenia, nor is it sufficient to exclude the diagnosis of some other psychiatric conditions. Partly as a consequence of these classification rules, it is possible for delusions to exist transdiagnostically. In this article, we evaluate the extent to which this happens, and in what ways the characteristics of delusions vary according to diagnostic context. We were able to examine their presence and form in delusional disorder, affective disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, borderline personality disorder, and dementia, in all of which they have an appreciable presence. There is some evidence that the mechanisms of delusion formation are, at least to an extent, shared across these disorders. This transdiagnostic extension of delusions is an argument for targeting them therapeutically in their own right. However there is a dearth of research to enable the rational transdiagnostic deployment of either pharmacological or psychological treatments.

Familiality of Psychotic Disorders: A Polynosologic Study in Multiplex Families.

INTRODUCTION: Phenotype definition of psychotic disorders has a strong impact on the degree of familial aggregation. Nevertheless, the extent to which distinct classification systems affect familial aggregation (ie, familiality) remains an open question. This study was aimed at examining the familiality associated with 4 nosologic systems of psychotic disorders (DSM-IV, ICD-10, Leonhard's classification and a data-driven approach) and their constituting diagnoses in a sample of multiplex families with psychotic disorders. METHODS: Participants were probands with a psychotic disorder, their parents and at least one first-degree relative with a psychotic disorder. The sample was made of 441 families comprising 2703 individuals, of whom 1094 were affected and 1709 unaffected. RESULTS: The Leonhard classification system had the highest familiality (h (2) = 0.64), followed by the empirical (h (2) = 0.55), DSM-IV (h (2) = 0.50), and ICD-10 (h (2) = 0.48). Familiality estimates for individual diagnoses varied considerably (h (2) = 0.25-0.79). Regarding schizophrenia diagnoses, Leonhard's systematic schizophrenia (h (2) = 0.78) had the highest familiality, followed by latent class core schizophrenia (h (2) = 0.74), DSM-IV schizophrenia (h (2) = 0.48), and ICD-10 schizophrenia (h (2) = 0.41). Psychotic mood disorders showed substantial familiality across nosologic systems (h (2) = 0.60-0.77). Domains of psychopathology other than reality-distortion symptoms showed moderate familiality irrespective of diagnosis (h (2) = 0.22-0.52) with the deficit syndrome of schizophrenia showing the highest familiality (h (2) = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: While affective psychoses showed relatively high familiality estimates across classification schemes, those of nonaffective psychoses varied markedly as a function of the diagnostic scheme with a narrow schizophrenia phenotype maximizing its familial aggregation. Leonhard's classification of psychotic disorders may be better suited for molecular genetic studies than the official diagnostic systems.

Specificity of Incident Diagnostic Outcomes in Patients at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis.

It is not well established whether the incident outcomes of the clinical high-risk (CHR) syndrome for psychosis are diagnostically specific for psychosis or whether CHR patients also are at elevated risk for a variety of nonpsychotic disorders. We collected 2 samples (NAPLS-1, PREDICT) that contained CHR patients and a control group who responded to CHR recruitment efforts but did not meet CHR criteria on interview (help-seeking comparison patients [HSC]). Incident diagnostic outcomes were defined as the occurrence of a SIPS-defined psychosis or a structured interview diagnosis from 1 of 3 nonpsychotic Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) groups (anxiety, bipolar, or nonbipolar mood disorder), when no diagnosis in that group was present at baseline. Logistic regression revealed that the CHR vs HSC effect did not vary significantly across study for any emergent diagnostic outcome; data from the 2 studies were therefore combined. CHR (n = 271) vs HSC (n = 171) emergent outcomes were: psychosis 19.6% vs 1.8%, bipolar disorders 1.1% vs 1.2%, nonbipolar mood disorders 4.4% vs 5.3%, and anxiety disorders 5.2% vs 5.3%. The main effect of CHR vs HSC was statistically significant (OR = 13.8, 95% CI 4.2-45.0, df = 1, P < .001) for emergent psychosis but not for any emergent nonpsychotic disorder. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. Within the CHR group emergent psychosis was significantly more likely than each nonpsychotic DSM-IV emergent disorder, and within the HSC group emergent psychosis was significantly less likely than most emergent nonpsychotic disorders. The CHR syndrome is specific as a marker for research on predictors and mechanisms of developing psychosis.

Recovery from serious mental illness: trajectories, characteristics, and the role of mental health care.

OBJECTIVE The objective was to identify trajectories of recovery from serious mental illnesses. METHODS A total of 177 members (92 women; 85 men) of a not-for-profit integrated health plan participated in a two-year mixed-methods study of recovery (STARS, the Study of Transitions and Recovery Strategies). Diagnoses included schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and affective psychosis. Data sources included self-reported standardized measures, interviewer ratings, qualitative interviews, and health plan data. Recovery was conceptualized as a latent construct, and factor analyses and factor scores were used to calculate recovery trajectories. Individuals with similar trajectories were identified through cluster analyses. RESULTS Four trajectories were identified-two stable (high and low levels of recovery) and two fluctuating (higher and lower). Few demographic or diagnostic factors differentiated clusters at baseline. Discriminant analyses for trajectories found differences in psychiatric symptoms, physical health, satisfaction with mental health clinicians, resources and strains, satisfaction with medications, and mental health service use. Those with higher scores on recovery factors had fewer psychiatric symptoms, better physical health, greater satisfaction with mental health clinicians, fewer strains and greater resources, less service use, better quality of care, and greater satisfaction with medication. Consistent predictors of trajectories included psychiatric symptoms, physical health, resources and strains, and use of psychiatric medications. CONCLUSIONS Having access to good-quality mental health care-defined as including satisfying relationships with clinicians, responsiveness to needs, satisfaction with psychiatric medications, receipt of services at needed levels, support in managing deficits in resources and strains, and care for general medical conditions-may facilitate recovery. Providing such care may improve recovery trajectories.

Can the DSM's major depression bereavement exclusion be validly extended to other stressors? Evidence from the NCS.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the DSM's distinction between uncomplicated (normal) vs. complicated (disordered) bereavement-related depressive episodes can be validly extended to non-bereavement stressor-related depression (SRD). Previous findings supporting the uncomplicated/complicated SRD distinction's discriminant validity were criticized as tautological because of definitional biases (e.g., 'uncomplicated' requires brief duration, yet duration was a validator). We tested whether uncomplicated/complicated SRD validator differences are tautological or real. METHOD: Using National Comorbidity Survey data, we compared uncomplicated SRDs, complicated SRDs, and endogenous/psychotic MDD on levels of eight pathology validators. We identified definitional biases affecting six validators, and corrected them by deleting the biasing definitional components and recalculating validator levels. RESULTS: After correction of biases, uncomplicated SRDs had significantly lower pathology levels than both complicated SRDs and endogenous/psychotic MDD on seven of eight validators, disconfirming the tautology hypothesis. Regression analysis revealed that 'uncomplicated' cannot be equated with 'mild'. Extending the 'uncomplicated' durational threshold from 2 to 6 months yielded equal or stronger discriminant validity, suggesting the arbitrariness of the current durational criterion. CONCLUSION: Uncomplicated SRDs' lower pathology levels are because of real syndromal differences, not definitional tautologies. The uncomplicated/complicated distinction has discriminant validity when extended to non-bereavement SRDs as an indicator of normality vs. disorder.

Cycloid psychoses: Leonhard's descriptions revisited

Background and Objectives: Cycloid psychoses are characterized by polymorphic symptomatology with intraphasic bipolarity, a remitting and recurrent course and favourable prognosis. Perris and Brockington (P&B) described the first set of operational criteria that were partly incorporated in ICD-10. The present study investigates psychopathological profiles according to the P&B criteria and the original descriptions by Leonhard, both against the background of the criteria from the prevailing international classification systems. Methods: Eighty patients with psychotic disorders were recruited and assessed with various psychometric instruments at baseline and after six weeks of antipsychotic treatment in order to investigate the presence of cycloid psychoses according to Leonhard (LCP) and the effect of treatment with antipsychotics. The overlap between LCP and DSM-IV Brief Psychotic Disorder (BPD), ICD Acute Polymorphic Psychotic Disorder (APP) and P&B criteria was calculated. Results: Using P&B criteria and a symptom checklist adapted from the original descriptions by Leonhard, 14 and 12 cases of cycloid psychosis were identified respectively reflecting a prevalence of 15-18%. Small though significant concordance rates were found between LCP and both DSM-BPD and ICD-APP. Concordance between LCP and P&B criteria was also significant, but modest. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that LCP can be identified in a substantial number of patients with psychotic disorders. Cycloid psychoses are not adequately covered in current classification systems and criteria. Since they are demonstrated to have a specific psychopathological profile, relapsing course and favourable prognosis, it is advocated to include these psychoses in daily differential diagnostic procedures (AU)

Depresión psicótica inducida por un Síndrome de Apnea Obstructiva del Sueño (SAOS): a propósito de un caso / Psychotic depression induced by Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome (OSAS): a case reported

El Síndrome de Apnea Obstructiva del Sueño (SAOS) es una alteración del sueño que frecuentemente se asocia a una gran diversidad de patologías, como la hipertensión arterial, enfermedades cardiovasculares, neuropsicológicas o metabólicas. La sintomatología más común y destacada de la apnea es la excesiva somnolencia diurna, así como alteraciones de la memoria y concentración, irritabilidad, cefaleas, y depresión, entre otras. Hasta la fecha no se conocen estudios que hayan relacionado el SAOS con otro tipo de alteraciones psiquiátricas más graves, como por ejemplo, la sintomatología psicótica. A continuación presentamos el caso de un varón de 51 años de edad que, tras presentar sintomatología psicótica y afectiva que no remitía con ningún fármaco, fue diagnosticado de SAOS, cuyo tratamiento logró la remisión completa de la sintomatología psiquiátrica (AU)

Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome (OSAS) is an alteration of the dream that frequently is associated to a great diversity of patologies, as hypertension, cardiovascular, neuropsychologycal or metabolic diseases. The most common and emphasized symptomatology of the apnoea is the excessive diurnal drowsiness, as well as alterations of the memory and concentration, irritability, migraines, and depression, among others. Up to the date there are not known studies that related the OSAS to another type of more serious psychiatric alterations, like for example, the psychotic symptomatology. Later we report the case of a 51-year-old male of age who, after presenting psychotic and affective symptomatology that was not sending with any medicament, was diagnosed of SAOS, whose treatment achieved the complete reference of the mentioned psychiatric symptomatology (AU)

Cognitive impairment in schizophrenia and affective psychoses: implications for DSM-V criteria and beyond.

It has recently been suggested that the diagnostic criteria of schizophrenia should include specific reference to cognitive impairments characterizing the disorder. Arguments in support of this assertion contend that such inclusion would not only serve to increase the awareness of cognitive deficits in affected patients, among both clinicians and researchers alike, but also increase the "point of rarity" between schizophrenia and mood disorders. The aim of the current article is to examine this latter assertion in light of the recent opinion piece provided by Keefe and Fenton (Keefe RSE, Fenton WS. How should DSM-V criteria for schizophrenia include cognitive impairment? Schizophr Bull. 2007;33:912-920). Through literature review, we explore the issue of whether cognitive deficits do in fact differentiate the major psychoses. The overall results of this inquiry suggest that inclusion of cognitive impairment criteria in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-V) would not provide a major advancement in discriminating schizophrenia from bipolar disorder and affective psychoses. Therefore, while cognitive impairment should be included in DSM-V, it should not dictate diagnostic specificity--at least not until more comprehensive evidence-based reviews of the current diagnostic system have been undertaken. Based on this evidence, we consider several alternatives for the DSM-V definition of cognitive impairment in schizophrenia, including (1) the inclusion of cognitive impairment as a specifier and (2) the definition of cognitive impairment as a dimension within a hybrid categorical-dimensional system. Given the state of current evidence, these possibilities appear to represent the most parsimonious approaches to the inclusion of cognitive deficits in the diagnostic criteria of schizophrenia and, potentially, of mood disorders.

Clinical correlates of atypical depression and validation of the French version of the Scale for Atypical Symptoms (SAS).

BACKGROUND: The 8-item "Scale for Atypical Symptoms" (SAS) and its structured interview, the SIGH-SAD, have been developed to assess atypical symptoms of depression in winter depression. Although they are commonly used, no validation study has yet been conducted. METHODS: 270 consecutive depressed inpatients were assessed prospectively. Pearson's correlation coefficients between fulfilment of Liebowitz criteria for atypical depression and both the SAS score and the atypical balance [ratio of the AS score to the total score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 29-item (HDRS-29)] were calculated. The SAS was evaluated against Liebowitz criteria using binary logistic regression. A ROC curve was performed with the atypical balance against the fulfilment of Liebowitz criteria. RESULTS: 18.5% of patients met the criteria for atypical depression. The presence of an atypical depression was significantly correlated with both the atypical score (r=0.42) and the atypical balance (r=0.51). The logistic regression showed that a higher score on the SAS, the absence of a somatic syndrome (ICD-10) and a lower HDRS-21 score were independent predictors of an atypical depression while age, gender and bipolarity were not. The ROC curve showed that an atypical balance of 29% was the optimal threshold for the diagnosis of atypical depression (sensitivity=0.86, specificity=0.79). LIMITATION: Patients with bipolar I and II were not distinguished. CONCLUSION: Atypical depression is relatively frequent in hospitalised patients. The concurrent validity of the French version of the SAS and its structured interview, the SIGH-SAD is satisfactory.

Does major depressive disorder with somatic delusions constitute a distinct subtype of major depressive disorder with psychotic features?

BACKGROUND: Among patients with major depression with psychotic features, little is known about the extent to which those with and without somatic delusions differ. METHODS: The first 183 participants in the STOP-PD study were divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of somatic delusions and were compared on multiple demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: In the multivariate analysis, those with somatic delusions reported more somatic symptoms, rated their health as worse, and were less likely to have persecutory delusions. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the methods we used, we could not detect meaningful differences between subjects with and without somatic delusions. This suggests that the presence of irrational somatic ideation does not define a distinct clinical subgroup among patients with psychotic depression. This finding needs to be replicated.

[Severe depression : which concept ? which criteria]. / Les dépressions sévères : quels concepts ? quels critères ?

Depression is a common disorder considered to be a serious public health problem although clinicians encounter very different levels of severity and the treatment strategies are tailored according to this variability. There are however no consensus criteria to define severe depression. This review presents and discusses the different possible qualitative and quantitative options. In the international classifications there are three levels of severity of episodes of major depression (mild, moderate, severe), which are defined above all on the number of diagnostic criteria found. There are other more qualitative severity factors : the presence of psychotic symptoms, melancholia and the presence of endogenous signs. Pronounced psychomotor retardation and risk of suicide are amongst the main clinical severity markers. Quantitative assessment scales for the severity of depression can also define severity thresholds for use for example in clinical studies. These thresholds are still poorly defined and vary between studies. Specific severity scales for melancholic depression or depression with psychomotor retardation can also be used in clinical studies for these factors, which are central to the concept of severe depression. Overall, the inclusion criteria for most studies combine severe depression with qualitative (clinicians' judgement) and quantitative (minimum score on a scale) aspects.

The work of Emil Kraepelin and his research group in München.

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.