Browsing by Author "Valmaggia, Lucia (23006795600)"

Important questions remain about the profile of cognitive impairment in psychotic disorders across adulthood and illness stages. The age-associated profile of familial impairments also remains unclear, as well as the effect of factors, such as symptoms, functioning, and medication. Using cross-sectional data from the EU-GEI and GROUP studies, comprising 8455 participants aged 18 to 65, we examined cognitive functioning across adulthood in patients with psychotic disorders (n = 2883), and their unaffected siblings (n = 2271), compared to controls (n = 3301). An abbreviated WAIS-III measured verbal knowledge, working memory, visuospatial processing, processing speed, and IQ. Patients showed medium to large deficits across all functions (ES range = –0.45 to –0.73, p < 0.001), while siblings showed small deficits on IQ, verbal knowledge, and working memory (ES = –0.14 to –0.33, p < 0.001). Magnitude of impairment was not associated with participant age, such that the size of impairment in older and younger patients did not significantly differ. However, first-episode patients performed worse than prodromal patients (ES range = –0.88 to –0.60, p < 0.001). Adjusting for cannabis use, symptom severity, and global functioning attenuated impairments in siblings, while deficits in patients remained statistically significant, albeit reduced by half (ES range = –0.13 to –0.38, p < 0.01). Antipsychotic medication also accounted for around half of the impairment in patients (ES range = –0.21 to –0.43, p < 0.01). Deficits in verbal knowledge, and working memory may specifically index familial, i.e., shared genetic and/or shared environmental, liability for psychotic disorders. Nevertheless, potentially modifiable illness-related factors account for a significant portion of the cognitive impairment in psychotic disorders. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.

Important questions remain about the profile of cognitive impairment in psychotic disorders across adulthood and illness stages. The age-associated profile of familial impairments also remains unclear, as well as the effect of factors, such as symptoms, functioning, and medication. Using cross-sectional data from the EU-GEI and GROUP studies, comprising 8455 participants aged 18 to 65, we examined cognitive functioning across adulthood in patients with psychotic disorders (n = 2883), and their unaffected siblings (n = 2271), compared to controls (n = 3301). An abbreviated WAIS-III measured verbal knowledge, working memory, visuospatial processing, processing speed, and IQ. Patients showed medium to large deficits across all functions (ES range = –0.45 to –0.73, p < 0.001), while siblings showed small deficits on IQ, verbal knowledge, and working memory (ES = –0.14 to –0.33, p < 0.001). Magnitude of impairment was not associated with participant age, such that the size of impairment in older and younger patients did not significantly differ. However, first-episode patients performed worse than prodromal patients (ES range = –0.88 to –0.60, p < 0.001). Adjusting for cannabis use, symptom severity, and global functioning attenuated impairments in siblings, while deficits in patients remained statistically significant, albeit reduced by half (ES range = –0.13 to –0.38, p < 0.01). Antipsychotic medication also accounted for around half of the impairment in patients (ES range = –0.21 to –0.43, p < 0.01). Deficits in verbal knowledge, and working memory may specifically index familial, i.e., shared genetic and/or shared environmental, liability for psychotic disorders. Nevertheless, potentially modifiable illness-related factors account for a significant portion of the cognitive impairment in psychotic disorders. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.

Background: Clinical research into the Clinical High Risk state for Psychosis (CHR-P) has allowed primary indicated prevention in psychiatry to improve outcomes of psychotic disorders. The strategic component of this approach is the implementation of clinical services to detect and take care of CHR-P individuals, which are recommended by several guidelines. The actual level of implementation of CHR-P services worldwide is not completely clear. Aim: To assess the global geographical distribution, core characteristics relating to the level of implementation of CHR-P services; to overview of the main barriers that limit their implementation at scale. Methods: CHR-P services worldwide were invited to complete an online survey. The survey addressed the geographical distribution, general implementation characteristics and implementation barriers. Results: The survey was completed by 47 CHR-P services offering care to 22 248 CHR-P individuals: Western Europe (51.1%), North America (17.0%), East Asia (17.0%), Australia (6.4%), South America (6.4%) and Africa (2.1%). Their implementation characteristics included heterogeneous clinical settings, assessment instruments and length of care offered. Most CHR-P patients were recruited through mental or physical health services. Preventive interventions included clinical monitoring and crisis management (80.1%), supportive therapy (70.2%) or structured psychotherapy (61.7%), in combination with pharmacological treatment (in 74.5%). Core implementation barriers were staffing and financial constraints, and the recruitment of CHR-P individuals. The dynamic map of CHR-P services has been implemented on the IEPA website: https://iepa.org.au/list-a-service/. Conclusions: Worldwide primary indicated prevention of psychosis in CHR-P individuals is possible, but the implementation of CHR-P services is heterogeneous and constrained by pragmatic challenges. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd

Background: Clinical research into the Clinical High Risk state for Psychosis (CHR-P) has allowed primary indicated prevention in psychiatry to improve outcomes of psychotic disorders. The strategic component of this approach is the implementation of clinical services to detect and take care of CHR-P individuals, which are recommended by several guidelines. The actual level of implementation of CHR-P services worldwide is not completely clear. Aim: To assess the global geographical distribution, core characteristics relating to the level of implementation of CHR-P services; to overview of the main barriers that limit their implementation at scale. Methods: CHR-P services worldwide were invited to complete an online survey. The survey addressed the geographical distribution, general implementation characteristics and implementation barriers. Results: The survey was completed by 47 CHR-P services offering care to 22 248 CHR-P individuals: Western Europe (51.1%), North America (17.0%), East Asia (17.0%), Australia (6.4%), South America (6.4%) and Africa (2.1%). Their implementation characteristics included heterogeneous clinical settings, assessment instruments and length of care offered. Most CHR-P patients were recruited through mental or physical health services. Preventive interventions included clinical monitoring and crisis management (80.1%), supportive therapy (70.2%) or structured psychotherapy (61.7%), in combination with pharmacological treatment (in 74.5%). Core implementation barriers were staffing and financial constraints, and the recruitment of CHR-P individuals. The dynamic map of CHR-P services has been implemented on the IEPA website: https://iepa.org.au/list-a-service/. Conclusions: Worldwide primary indicated prevention of psychosis in CHR-P individuals is possible, but the implementation of CHR-P services is heterogeneous and constrained by pragmatic challenges. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd