Negative symptoms of schizophrenia and psychosocial treatment: thematic analysis of stakeholders’ perspectives

Objectives. Recent literature indicates variance in psychosocial treatment preferences for negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Attempts at defining therapeutic aims and outcomes for negative symptoms to date have not included major stakeholder groups. The aim of the present study was to address this gap through qualitative methods. Design. Thematic Analysis was applied to qualitative semi-structured interview data to gather the opinions of people who experience negative symptoms, carers, and healthcare professionals. Participants were recruited from two mental health sites (inpatient/community) to increase generalisability of results. Ten people participated in the research. Methods. Semi-structured interview scripts were designed utilising evidence from the review in Chapter 1 of effective psychosocial intervention components for specific negative symptoms. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was employed to analyse data. Results. A common theme across groups was the need for a personalised approach to intervention for negative symptoms. Other themes indicated different opinions in relation to treatment targets and the need for a sensitive and graded approach to all aspects of therapy. This approach needs to be supported across systemic levels of organisation with specific training needs for staff addressed. Conclusions. There is disparity in treatment preferences for negative symptoms across major stakeholders. The findings suggest an individualised approach to intervention of negative symptoms that is consistent with recovery. Implementation barriers and facilitators were identified and discussed. There remains a need to develop a better understanding of treatment preferences for patients.

Exploring the potential role of allostatic load biomarkers in risk assessment of patients presenting with depressive symptoms

Background: Depression is a major health problem worldwide and the majority of patients presenting with depressive symptoms are managed in primary care. Current approaches for assessing depressive symptoms in primary care are not accurate in predicting future clinical outcomes, which may potentially lead to over or under treatment. The Allostatic Load (AL) theory suggests that by measuring multi-system biomarker levels as a proxy of measuring multi-system physiological dysregulation, it is possible to identify individuals at risk of having adverse health outcomes at a prodromal stage. Allostatic Index (AI) score, calculated by applying statistical formulations to different multi-system biomarkers, have been associated with depressive symptoms. Aims and Objectives: To test the hypothesis, that a combination of allostatic load (AL) biomarkers will form a predictive algorithm in defining clinically meaningful outcomes in a population of patients presenting with depressive symptoms. The key objectives were: 1. To explore the relationship between various allostatic load biomarkers and prevalence of depressive symptoms in patients, especially in patients diagnosed with three common cardiometabolic diseases (Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), Diabetes and Stroke). 2 To explore whether allostatic load biomarkers predict clinical outcomes in patients with depressive symptoms, especially in patients with three common cardiometabolic diseases (CHD, Diabetes and Stroke). 3 To develop a predictive tool to identify individuals with depressive symptoms at highest risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Methods: Datasets used: ‘DepChron’ was a dataset of 35,537 patients with existing cardiometabolic disease collected as a part of routine clinical practice. ‘Psobid’ was a research data source containing health related information from 666 participants recruited from the general population. The clinical outcomes for 3 both datasets were studied using electronic data linkage to hospital and mortality health records, undertaken by Information Services Division, Scotland. Cross-sectional associations between allostatic load biomarkers calculated at baseline, with clinical severity of depression assessed by a symptom score, were assessed using logistic and linear regression models in both datasets. Cox’s proportional hazards survival analysis models were used to assess the relationship of allostatic load biomarkers at baseline and the risk of adverse physical health outcomes at follow-up, in patients with depressive symptoms. The possibility of interaction between depressive symptoms and allostatic load biomarkers in risk prediction of adverse clinical outcomes was studied using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. Finally, the value of constructing a risk scoring scale using patient demographics and allostatic load biomarkers for predicting adverse outcomes in depressed patients was investigated using clinical risk prediction modelling and Area Under Curve (AUC) statistics. Key Results: Literature Review Findings. The literature review showed that twelve blood based peripheral biomarkers were statistically significant in predicting six different clinical outcomes in participants with depressive symptoms. Outcomes related to both mental health (depressive symptoms) and physical health were statistically associated with pre-treatment levels of peripheral biomarkers; however only two studies investigated outcomes related to physical health. Cross-sectional Analysis Findings: In DepChron, dysregulation of individual allostatic biomarkers (mainly cardiometabolic) were found to have a non-linear association with increased probability of co-morbid depressive symptoms (as assessed by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score HADS-D≥8). A composite AI score constructed using five biomarkers did not lead to any improvement in the observed strength of the association. In Psobid, BMI was found to have a significant cross-sectional association with the probability of depressive symptoms (assessed by General Health Questionnaire GHQ-28≥5). BMI, triglycerides, highly sensitive C - reactive 4 protein (CRP) and High Density Lipoprotein-HDL cholesterol were found to have a significant cross-sectional relationship with the continuous measure of GHQ-28. A composite AI score constructed using 12 biomarkers did not show a significant association with depressive symptoms among Psobid participants. Longitudinal Analysis Findings: In DepChron, three clinical outcomes were studied over four years: all-cause death, all-cause hospital admissions and composite major adverse cardiovascular outcome-MACE (cardiovascular death or admission due to MI/stroke/HF). Presence of depressive symptoms and composite AI score calculated using mainly peripheral cardiometabolic biomarkers was found to have a significant association with all three clinical outcomes over the following four years in DepChron patients. There was no evidence of an interaction between AI score and presence of depressive symptoms in risk prediction of any of the three clinical outcomes. There was a statistically significant interaction noted between SBP and depressive symptoms in risk prediction of major adverse cardiovascular outcome, and also between HbA1c and depressive symptoms in risk prediction of all-cause mortality for patients with diabetes. In Psobid, depressive symptoms (assessed by GHQ-28≥5) did not have a statistically significant association with any of the four outcomes under study at seven years: all cause death, all cause hospital admission, MACE and incidence of new cancer. A composite AI score at baseline had a significant association with the risk of MACE at seven years, after adjusting for confounders. A continuous measure of IL-6 observed at baseline had a significant association with the risk of three clinical outcomes- all-cause mortality, all-cause hospital admissions and major adverse cardiovascular event. Raised total cholesterol at baseline was associated with lower risk of all-cause death at seven years while raised waist hip ratio- WHR at baseline was associated with higher risk of MACE at seven years among Psobid participants. There was no significant interaction between depressive symptoms and peripheral biomarkers (individual or combined) in risk prediction of any of the four clinical outcomes under consideration. Risk Scoring System Development: In the DepChron cohort, a scoring system was constructed based on eight baseline demographic and clinical variables to predict the risk of MACE over four years. The AUC value for the risk scoring system was modest at 56.7% (95% CI 55.6 to 57.5%). In Psobid, it was not possible to perform this analysis due to the low event rate observed for the clinical outcomes. Conclusion: Individual peripheral biomarkers were found to have a cross-sectional association with depressive symptoms both in patients with cardiometabolic disease and middle-aged participants recruited from the general population. AI score calculated with different statistical formulations was of no greater benefit in predicting concurrent depressive symptoms or clinical outcomes at follow-up, over and above its individual constituent biomarkers, in either patient cohort. SBP had a significant interaction with depressive symptoms in predicting cardiovascular events in patients with cardiometabolic disease; HbA1c had a significant interaction with depressive symptoms in predicting all-cause mortality in patients with diabetes. Peripheral biomarkers may have a role in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with depressive symptoms, especially for those with existing cardiometabolic disease, and this merits further investigation.