Search

Background Neurocognitive impairment is recognised as a risk factor for suicidal behaviour in adults. The current study aims to determine whether neurocognitive deficits also predict ongoing or emergent suicidal behaviour in young people with affective disorders. Methods Participants were aged 12-30 years and presented to early intervention youth mental health clinics between 2008 and 2018. In addition to clinical assessment a standardised neurocognitive assessment was conducted at baseline. Clinical data was extracted from subsequent visits using a standardised proforma. Results Of the 635 participants who met inclusion criteria (mean age 19.6 years, 59% female, average follow up 476 days) 104 (16%) reported suicidal behaviour during care. In 5 of the 10 neurocognitive domains tested (cognitive flexibility, processing speed, working memory, verbal memory and visuospatial memory) those with suicidal behaviour during care were superior to clinical controls. Better general neurocognitive function remained a significant predictor (OR=1.94, 95% CI 1.29- 2.94) of suicidal behaviour in care after controlling for other risk factors. Limitations The neurocognitive battery used was designed for use with affective and psychotic disorders and may not have detected some deficits more specific to suicidal behaviour. Conclusion Contrary to expectations, better neurocognitive functioning predicts suicidal behaviour during care in young people with affective disorders. While other populations with suicidal behaviour, such as adults with affective disorders or young people with psychotic disorders, tend to experience neurocognitive deficits which may limit their capacity to engage in some interventions, this does not appear to be the case for young people with affective disorders.

Background Evidence from family and twin studies suggests that mood and anxiety disorders, and related temperamental factors may share common etiologic factors. We examine the familial aggregation and coaggregation of anxiety disorder subtypes and anxiety-related temperamental traits, and their association with mood disorders. Methods A total of 477 probands and 549 first-degree adult relatives from a large community based family study of affective spectrum disorders completed semi-structured diagnostic interviews and self-reported assessments of temperamental traits including: negative affectivity on the ‘Positive and Negative Affect Schedule’ (PANAS), neuroticism anxiety on the ‘Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire’ (ZKPQ), and anxiety sensitivity on the ‘Anxiety Sensitivity Index’ (ASI). Results The anxiety-related temperamental traits of negative affectivity, neuroticism anxiety and anxiety sensitivity had significant familial specificity, even after controlling for comorbid mood and anxiety disorders in probands and relatives. Yet, these traits in probands did not predict anxiety disorders in relatives. Although some anxiety subtypes were familial, there were no longer familial links between anxiety disorder subtypes (generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety or panic disorder) after controlling for mood disorder subtypes in probands and relatives. Limitations Cross-sectional interviews were used to estimate disorders, and self-report measures were used for temperamental traits. Conclusions These results confirm previous research regarding familial overlap between anxiety subtypes and mood disorders, however their shared liability cannot be fully explained by anxiety-related temperamental traits. These findings suggest that anxiety-related temperamental traits may indicate a vulnerability for mood and anxiety disorders or a potential consequence of these conditions.

Background: There is growing evidence to support the need for personalised intervention in the early stages of a major psychiatric illness, as well as the clear delineation of subgroups in psychiatric disorders based on cognitive impairment. Affective disorders are often accompanied by neurocognitive deficits; however a lack of research among young adult inpatients highlights the need to assess the utility of cognitive testing in this population. Methods: A computerised cognitive battery was administered to 50 current inpatient young adults (16–30 years; 75% female) with an affective disorder. Patients also completed a computerised self-report questionnaire (to measure demographics and clinical features) that included items evaluating subjective impressions of their cognition. Results: Hierarchical cluster analysis determined two neurocognitive subgroups: cluster 1 (n = 16) showed more severe impairments in sustained attention and memory as well as higher anxiety levels, compared to their peers in cluster 2 (n = 30) who showed the most impaired attentional switching. Across the sample, poor sustained attention was significantly correlated with higher levels of current anxiety and depressive symptoms, whereas poor verbal memory was significantly associated with increased psychological distress. Limitations: This study has a relatively small sample size (due to it being a pilot/feasibility study). Furthermore, future studies should aim to assess inpatient samples compared to community care samples, as well as healthy controls, on a larger scale. Conclusions: The findings suggest neurocognitive profiles are important in understanding phenotypes within young people with severe affective disorders. With clear subgroups based on cognitive impairment being demonstrated, the clinical utility and use of new and emerging technologies is warranted in such inpatients facilities. This pilot/feasibility study has strengthened the utility of cognitive screening as standard clinical care in an inpatient unit.