A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä
Neurocognitive skills and vulnerability for psychosis in depression and across the psychotic spectrum: findings from the PRONIA Consortium
Tekijät: Bonivento Carolina, Kambeitz-Ilankovic Lana, Maggioni Eleonora, Borgwardt Stefan, Lencer Rebekka, Meisenzahl Eva, Kambeitz Joseph, Ruhrmann Stephan, Salokangas Raimo K. R., Bertolino Alessandro, Stainton Alexandra, Wenzel Julian, Pantelis Christos, Wood Stephen J., Upthegrove Rachel, Koutsouleris Nikolaos, Brambilla Paolo; the PRONIA Consortium
Kustantaja: Royal College of Psychiatrists
Julkaisuvuosi: 2023
Journal: British Journal of Psychiatry
Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimi: BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
Vuosikerta: 223
Numero: 4
ISSN: 0007-1250
eISSN: 1472-1465
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2023.98
Verkko-osoite: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/neurocognitive-skills-and-vulnerability-for-psychosis-in-depression-and-across-the-psychotic-spectrum-findings-from-the-pronia-consortium/9EBC7FA793212AD2560F401527B315EC
Background
Neurocognitive deficits are a core feature of psychosis and depression. Despite commonalities in cognitive alterations, it remains unclear if and how the cognitive deficits in patients at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR) and those with recent-onset psychosis (ROP) are distinct from those seen in recent-onset depression (ROD).
Aims
This study was carried out within the European project ‘Personalized Prognostic Tools for Early Psychosis Management’, and aimed to characterise the cognitive profiles of patients with psychosis or depression.
Method
We examined cognitive profiles for patients with ROP (n = 105), patients with ROD (n = 123), patients at CHR (n = 116) and healthy controls (n = 372) across seven sites in five European countries. Confirmatory factor analysis identified four cognitive factors independent of gender, education and site: speed of processing, attention and working memory, verbal learning and spatial learning.
Results
Patients with ROP performed worse than healthy controls in all four domains (P < 0.001), whereas performance of patients with ROD was not affected (P > 0.05). Patients at CHR performed worse than healthy controls in speed of processing (P = 0.001) and spatial learning (P = 0.003), but better than patients with ROP across all cognitive domains (all P ≤ 0.01). CHR and ROD groups did not significantly differ in any cognitive domain. These findings were independent of comorbid depressive symptoms, substance consumption and illness duration.
Conclusions
These results show that neurocognitive abilities are affected in CHR and ROP, whereas ROD seems spared. Although our findings may support the notion that those at CHR have a specific vulnerability to psychosis, future studies investigating broader transdiagnostic risk cohorts in longitudinal designs are needed.