Shanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, SHARP Program, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; Psychiatry Neuroimaging Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Worcester Recovery Center & Hospital, Massachusetts Department of Mental Health, MA, USA.
Schizophr Res. 2020 Dec;226:138-146. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2020.06.018. Epub 2020 Jul 18.
Baseline neurocognitive assessments of CHR (n = 217) and healthy control (HC; n = 133) subjects were compared based on 1-year follow-up clinical status using MANOVA. CHR subjects were first divided into 'converter' (CHR-C; n = 41) and 'non-converter' (CHR-NC; n = 155) to psychosis groups and compared to HC and to each other. CHR subjects were then divided into 'remission' (i.e. achieved remission; n = 102), 'symptomatic' (persistent positive symptoms in the absence of conversion; n = 37) and 'poor-outcome' (converted and symptomatic subjects who did not respond to treatment; n = 57) groups.
CHR neurocognitive performance was broadly impaired compared to HC; CHR-C subjects showed lower performance in processing speed and visual learning than CHR-NC. CHRs with poor clinical outcomes showed lower performance on most MCCB tasks compared to HC, particularly in learning and processing speed, as clinical outcome worsened from remission to symptomatic to poor outcome groups.
Level and pattern of baseline neurocognitive weaknesses in SHARP CHR subjects were similar to those in NAPLS-2. Outcome stratification into remission, symptomatic and poor groups was associated with increasing cognitive deficits in learning and processing speed. These findings support cross-cultural generalizability and advance understanding of CHR neurocognitive heterogeneity associated with 1-year clinical outcomes.
1)评估先前西方临床高风险(CHR)精神分裂症研究中报告的神经认知缺陷在上海前临床高危(SHARP)研究中的普遍性;2)研究 CHR 受试者的神经认知与更广泛的临床结果(例如缓解)之间的关系,而不仅仅是精神疾病的存在或不存在。
根据 1 年随访的临床状况,采用 MANOVA 对 CHR(n=217)和健康对照组(HC;n=133)受试者的基线神经认知评估进行比较。首先,将 CHR 受试者分为“转化者”(CHR-C;n=41)和“非转化者”(CHR-NC;n=155),然后与 HC 和彼此进行比较。然后,将 CHR 受试者分为“缓解者”(即达到缓解;n=102)、“症状者”(持续存在阳性症状而未转化;n=37)和“不良结局者”(转化和症状者对治疗无反应;n=57)。
与 HC 相比,CHR 的神经认知表现广泛受损;CHR-C 受试者在处理速度和视觉学习方面的表现低于 CHR-NC。临床结局从缓解到症状到不良结局的 CHR 表现出较差的认知表现,大多数 MCCB 任务的表现较差,特别是在学习和处理速度方面。
SHARP CHR 受试者的基线神经认知薄弱程度和模式与 NAPLS-2 相似。根据缓解、症状和不良结局进行分组与学习和处理速度的认知缺陷增加有关。这些发现支持跨文化的普遍性,并进一步了解与 1 年临床结局相关的 CHR 神经认知异质性。