Search

The European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. HEALTH-F2-2010-241909 (EUGEI); The Spanish sample was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (SAM16PE07CP1, PI16/02012, PI19/024) (...), Velthorst, E., Mollon, J., Murray, R.M., de Haan, L., Germeys, I.M., Glahn, D.C., Arango, C., van der Ven, E., Di Forti, M., Bernardo, M., Guloksuz, S., Delespaul, P., Mezquida, G., Amoretti, S., Bobes, J., Saiz, P.A., García-Portilla, M.P., Santos, J.L., Jiménez-López, E., Sanjuan, J., Aguilar, E.J., Arrojo, M., Carracedo, A., López, G., González-Peñas, J., Parellada, M., Atbaşoğlu, C., Saka, M.C., Üçok, A., Alptekin, K., Akdede, B., Binbay, T., Altınyazar, V., Ulaş, H., Yalınçetin, B., Gümüş-Akay, G., Beyaz, B.C., Soygür, H., Cankurtaran, E.Ş., Kaymak, S.U., Maric, N.P., Mihaljevic, M.M., Petrovic, S.A., Mirjanic, T., Del-Ben, C.M., Ferraro, L., Gayer-Anderson, C., Jones, P.B., Jongsma, H.E., Kirkbride, J.B., La Cascia, C., Lasalvia, A., Tosato, S., Llorca, P.-M., Menezes, P.R., Morgan, C., Quattrone, D., Menchetti, M., Selten, J.-P., Szöke, A., Tarricone, I., Tortelli, A., McGuire, P., Valmaggia, L., Kempton, M.J., van der Gaag, M., Riecher-Rössler, A., Bressan, R.A., Barrantes-Vidal, N., Nelson, B., McGorry, P., Pantelis, C., Krebs, M.-O., Ruhrmann, S., Sachs, G., Rutten, B.P.F., van Os, J., Alizadeh, B.Z., van Amelsvoort, T., Bartels-Velthuis, A.A., Bruggeman, R., van Beveren, N.J., Luykx, J.J., Cahn, W., Simons, C.J.P., Kahn, R.S., Schirmbeck, F., van Winkel, R., Calem, M., Tognin, S., Modinos, G., Pisani, S., Kraan, T.C., van Dam, D.S., Burger, N., Amminger, G.P., Politis, A., Goodall, J., Borgwardt, S., Studerus, E., Gadelha, A., Brietzke, E., Asevedo, G., Asevedo, E., Zugman, A., Domínguez-Martínez, T., Monsonet, M., Cristóbal-Narváez, P., Racioppi, A., Kwapil, T.R., Kazes, M., Daban, C., Bourgin, J., Gay, O., Mam-Lam-Fook, C., Nordholm, D., Rander, L., Krakauer, K., Glenthøj, L.B., Glenthøj, B., Gebhard, D., Arnhold, J., Klosterkötter, J., Lasser, I., Winklbaur, B., Reichenberg, A., EU-GEI High Risk Study

Background First-degree relatives of patients with psychotic disorder have higher levels of polygenic risk (PRS) for schizophrenia and higher levels of intermediate phenotypes. Methods We conducted, using two different samples for discovery (n= 336 controls and 649 siblings of patients with psychotic disorder) and replication (n= 1208 controls and 1106 siblings), an analysis of association between PRS on the one hand and psychopathological and cognitive intermediate phenotypes of schizophrenia on the other in a sample at average genetic risk (healthy controls) and a sample at higher than average risk (healthy siblings of patients). Two subthreshold psychosis phenotypes, as well as a standardised measure of cognitive ability, based on a short version of the WAIS-III short form, were used. In addition, a measure of jumping to conclusion bias (replication sample only) was tested for association with PRS. Results In both discovery and replication sample, evidence for an association between PRS and subthreshold psychosis phenotypes was observed in the relatives of patients, whereas in the controls no association was observed. Jumping to conclusion bias was similarly only associated with PRS in the sibling group. Cognitive ability was weakly negatively and non-significantly associated with PRS in both the sibling and the control group. Conclusions The degree of endophenotypic expression of schizophrenia polygenic risk depends on having a sibling with psychotic disorder, suggestive of underlying gene-environment interaction. Cognitive biases may better index genetic risk of disorder than traditional measures of neurocognition, which instead may reflect the population distribution of cognitive ability impacting the prognosis of psychotic disorder.

Aims Psychosis spectrum disorder has a complex pathoetiology characterised by interacting environmental and genetic vulnerabilities. The present study aims to investigate the role of gene-environment interaction using aggregate scores of genetic (polygenic risk score for schizophrenia (PRS-SCZ)) and environment liability for schizophrenia (exposome score for schizophrenia (ES-SCZ)) across the psychosis continuum. Methods The sample consisted of 1699 patients, 1753 unaffected siblings, and 1542 healthy comparison participants. The Structured Interview for Schizotypy-Revised (SIS-R) was administered to analyse scores of total, positive, and negative schizotypy in siblings and healthy comparison participants. The PRS-SCZ was trained using the Psychiatric Genomics Consortiums results and the ES-SCZ was calculated guided by the approach validated in a previous report in the current data set. Regression models were applied to test the independent and joint effects of PRS-SCZ and ES-SCZ (adjusted for age, sex, and ancestry using 10 principal components). Results Both genetic and environmental vulnerability were associated with case-control status. Furthermore, there was evidence for additive interaction between binary modes of PRS-SCZ and ES-SCZ (above 75% of the control distribution) increasing the odds for schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis (relative excess risk due to interaction = 6.79, [95% confidential interval (CI) 3.32, 10.26], p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses using continuous PRS-SCZ and ES-SCZ confirmed gene-environment interaction (relative excess risk due to interaction = 1.80 [95% CI 1.01, 3.32], p = 0.004). In siblings and healthy comparison participants, PRS-SCZ and ES-SCZ were associated with all SIS-R dimensions and evidence was found for an interaction between PRS-SCZ and ES-SCZ on the total (B = 0.006 [95% CI 0.003, 0.009], p < 0.001), positive (B = 0.006 [95% CI, 0.002, 0.009], p = 0.002), and negative (B = 0.006, [95% CI 0.004, 0.009], p < 0.001) schizotypy dimensions. Conclusions The interplay between exposome load and schizophrenia genetic liability contributing to psychosis across the spectrum of expression provide further empirical support to the notion of aetiological continuity underlying an extended psychosis phenotype.

32nd Congress of the European-College-of-Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) -- SEP 07-10, 2019 -- Copenhagen, DENMARK, WOS: 000502657501022, [No abstract available], European Coll Neuropsychopharmacol

Exposures constitute a dense network of the environment: exposome. Here, we argue for embracing the exposome paradigm to investigate the sum of nongenetic "risk" and show how predictive modeling approaches can be used to construct an exposome score (ES; an aggregated score of exposures) for schizophrenia. The training dataset consisted of patients with schizophrenia and controls, whereas the independent validation dataset consisted of patients, their unaffected siblings, and controls. Binary exposures were cannabis use, hearing impairment, winter birth, bullying, and emotional, physical, and sexual abuse along with physical and emotional neglect. We applied logistic regression (LR), Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB), the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), and Ridge penalized classification models to the training dataset. ESs, the sum of weighted exposures based on coefficients from each model, were calculated in the validation dataset. In addition, we estimated ES based on meta-analyses and a simple sum score of exposures. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic, and Nagelkerke's R-2 were compared. The ESMeta-analyses performed the worst, whereas the sum score and the ESGNB were worse than the ESLR that performed similar to the ESLASSO and ESRIDGE. The ESLR distinguished patients from controls (odds ratio [OR] = 1.94, P < .001), patients from siblings (OR = 1.58, P < .001), and siblings from controls (OR = 1.21, P= .001). An increase in ESLR was associated with a gradient increase of schizophrenia risk. In reference to the remaining fractions, the ESLR at top 30%, 20%, and 10% of the control distribution yielded ORs of 3.72, 3.74, and 4.77, respectively. Our findings demonstrate that predictive modeling approaches can be harnessed to evaluate the exposome.

José Manuel Olivares,1 Köksal Alptekin,2 Jean-Michel Azorin,3 Fernando Cañas,4 Vincent Dubois,5 Robin Emsley,6 Philip Gorwood,7 Peter M Haddad,8 Dieter Naber,9 George Papageorgiou,10 Miquel Roca,11 Pierre Thomas,12 Guadalupe Martinez,13 Andreas Schreiner141Department of Psychiatry, Hospital Meixoeiro, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain; 2Department of Psychiatry, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey; 3Department of Psychiatry, Sainte Marguerite Hospital, Marseille, France; 4Department of Psychiatry, Hospital Dr R Lafora, Madrid, Spain; 5Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc, Bruxelles, Belgium; 6Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa; 7Sainte-Anne Hospital, Paris Descartes University and INSERM U894, Paris, France; 8Greater Manchester West Mental Health National Health Service Foundation Trust and Department of Psychiatry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 9Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Hamburg, Germany; 10Department of Psychiatry, Evangelismos General Hospital, Athens, Greece; 11Unidad de Psiquiatría, Hospital Juan March, Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Ciències de la Salut, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma de Mallorca, Spain; 12Department of Psychiatry, Fontan Hospital CHRU Lille, UDSL, University North of France, Lille, France; 13Medical Affairs, Janssen, Madrid, Spain; 14Medical Affairs, Janssen, Neuss, GermanyBackground: Nonadherence is common among patients with schizophrenia, although the rates vary according to means of assessment and patient population. Failure to adhere to medication can have a major impact on the course of illness and treatment outcomes, including increasing the risk of relapse and rehospitalization. Understanding psychiatrists’ perception of the causes and consequences of nonadherence is crucial to addressing adherence problems effectively.Methods: The Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) Spanish Adherencia Terapéutica en la Esquizofrenia (ADHES) survey was conducted by questionnaire during January–March 2010 among psychiatrists treating patients with schizophrenia in 36 countries. The survey comprised 20 questions. In addition to recording the demographic details of the 4722 respondents (~12% response rate), it canvassed their preferred methods of assessing adherence, their perceptions of adherence rates, reasons for nonadherence, and strategies to improve adherence.Results: Psychiatrists estimated that 53% of their patients with schizophrenia were partially/nonadherent during the previous month. They estimated only one-third of patients who deteriorated after stopping medication were able to attribute this to nonadherence. Psychiatrists assessed adherence most often by patient interview. Lack of insight was viewed as the most important cause of medication discontinuation, followed by patients feeling better and thinking their medication unnecessary, and experiencing undesirable side effects. Considerably fewer psychiatrists viewed insufficient efficacy, cognitive impairment, or drug/alcohol abuse as the most important reasons for their patients stopping medication.Conclusion: Psychiatrists throughout EMEA recognize the impact of partial/nonadherence to medication, with patient enquiry being the most commonly used means of assessment. There remains a need for more proactive management of patients with schizophrenia, particularly in increasing patient insight of their illness in order to improve adherence and minimize the consequences of relapse. Strategies focused on raising awareness of the importance of adherence are also warranted, with the aim of improving patient outcomes in schizophrenia.Keywords: adherence, schizophrenia, psychiatrist, survey, ADHES

Recent years have seen considerable progress in epidemiological and molecular genetic research into environmental and genetic factors in schizophrenia, but methodological uncertainties remain with regard to validating environmental exposures, and the population risk conferred by individual molecular genetic variants is small. There are now also a limited number of studies that have investigated molecular genetic candidate gene-environment interactions (G × E), however, so far, thorough replication of findings is rare and G × E research still faces several conceptual and methodological challenges. In this article, we aim to review these recent developments and illustrate how integrated, large-scale investigations may overcome contemporary challenges in G × E research, drawing on the example of a large, international, multi-center study into the identification and translational application of G × E in schizophrenia. While such investigations are now well underway, new challenges emerge for G × E research from late-breaking evidence that genetic variation and environmental exposures are, to a significant degree, shared across a range of psychiatric disorders, with potential overlap in phenotype. © 2014 The Author.

Today, suicides which are an increasing trend in many countries and especially in young population considered as a global problem. Statistics indicates that suicides increased around 60% in last 45 years. Within this facet shows that suicides occupy our agenda more; consequently it indicates that importance of the preventive efforts will improve. Suicide itself and its prevention is a complex phenomenon and various problems occur in its constitution. Some of the problems related to the suicides covers as lack of national prevention program, concentration on treatment, myths and labeling, discrepancies in terminology, insufficient recording,difficulties to reach the mental health services, and news that give fair to the suicide and incentives role of media. Before all else, efforts to aim to prevent the suicide in Turkey which are conducted as loose and disordered must be undertaken within the framework of a program. Besides, giving importance to the primary prevention and it must be integrated with secondary and tertiary prevention efforts.

Amisulpride is an atypical antipsychotic with a significantly greater effect size than first-generation, typical antipsychotics, and efficacy at least similar to that of olanzapine and risperidone in large-scale clinical trials in schizophrenia. Amisulpride provides greater improvement in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, a better long-term outcome than typical antipsychotics, and distinct tolerability advantages over typical antipsychotics, which are reported to cause extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) in 20-50% of patients. In addition, amisulpride is associated with significantly less weight gain than olanzapine and risperidone, does not increase body mass index, and favourably influences lipid profiles. In many patients with schizophrenia, adverse events impair adherence to treatment, and switching from typical or atypical antipsychotic therapy to amisulpride may be clinically appropriate. Observational drug-utilization studies suggest that many physicians switch to amisulpride because of fewer EPS and/or less weight gain and improved patient adherence. Cross-tapering (over 4 weeks), rather than abrupt cessation of pre-switch treatment, is preferred. Amisulpride has a low risk of drug-drug interactions, and, during cross-tapering, patients can remain on concurrent treatments (e.g. anticholinergics and antiparkinsonian agents) until the effective dosage has been reached. An appropriate amisulpride starting dose is 800 mg/day for patients with acute psychotic exacerbations, 400-800 mg/day for patients with predominantly positive symptoms, and 100-300 mg/day for predominantly negative symptoms. Amisulpride may be particularly suitable for clozapine-augmentation therapy in patients with refractory schizophrenia. Indeed, amisulpride is more effective than quetiapine as augmentation therapy in patients partially responsive to clozapine, and several prospective open-label studies and case series have reported promising results for amisulpride/ clozapine combination therapy. In three prospective studies, addition of amisulpride 200-800 mg/day to clozapine significantly reduced mean scores on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total (-33% to -35%), Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale (-31%), Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total (-22%), and Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (-34%). The proportion of responders (CGI score ≥3 or BPRS improvement >20%) was 71-86%. Retrospective case-series analyses have also reported improved psychopathological state, reduced adverse events, and lower clozapine dosage requirement with use of this combination. The pharmacological and clinical profiles of amisulpride suggest that this agent is a viable clinical option when a change of antipsychotic therapy is required in patients with schizophrenia because of lack of efficacy, adverse events and poor adherence to treatment, or for augmentation of clozapine in treatment-resistant illness. © 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.

Amisulpride is an atypical antipsychotic with a significantly greater effect size than first-generation, typical antipsychotics, and efficacy at least similar to that of olanzapine and risperidone in large-scale clinical trials in schizophrenia. Amisulpride provides greater improvement in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, a better long-term outcome than typical antipsychotics, and distinct tolerability advantages over typical antipsychotics, which are reported to cause extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) in 20-50% of patients. In addition, amisulpride is associated with significantly less weight gain than olanzapine and risperidone, does not increase body mass index, and favourably influences lipid profiles. In many patients with schizophrenia, adverse events impair adherence to treatment, and switching from typical or atypical antipsychotic therapy to amisulpride may be clinically appropriate. Observational drug-utilization studies suggest that many physicians switch to amisulpride because of fewer EPS and/or less weight gain and improved patient adherence. Cross-tapering (over 4 weeks), rather than abrupt cessation of pre-switch treatment, is preferred. Amisulpride has a low risk of drug-drug interactions, and, during cross-tapering, patients can remain on concurrent treatments (e.g. anticholinergics and antiparkinsonian agents) until the effective dosage has been reached. An appropriate amisulpride starting dose is 800 mg/day for patients with acute psychotic exacerbations, 400-800 mg/day for patients with predominantly positive symptoms, and 100-300 mg/day for predominantly negative symptoms. Amisulpride may be particularly suitable for clozapine-augmentation therapy in patients with refractory schizophrenia. Indeed, amisulpride is more effective than quetiapine as augmentation therapy in patients partially responsive to clozapine, and several prospective open-label studies and case series have reported promising results for amisulpride/clozapine combination therapy. In three prospective studies, addition of amisulpride 200-800 mg/day to clozapine significantly reduced mean scores on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total (-33% to -35%), Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale (-31%), Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total (-22%), and Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (-34%). The proportion of responders (CGI score > or =3 or BPRS improvement >20%) was 71-86%. Retrospective case-series analyses have also reported improved psychopathological state, reduced adverse events, and lower clozapine dosage requirement with use of this combination. The pharmacological and clinical profiles of amisulpride suggest that this agent is a viable clinical option when a change of antipsychotic therapy is required in patients with schizophrenia because of lack of efficacy, adverse events and poor adherence to treatment, or for augmentation of clozapine in treatment-resistant illness.