Minimum Clinically Important Difference in the Global Assessment Functioning in Patients with Schizophrenia

Revisiting the relationship between impaired social functioning and psychopathology in schizophrenia

Impaired social functioning is a common and well-known feature of schizophrenia. The relationship between psychopathology and social functioning is poorly understood, but substance use disorder is often suspected to negatively impact social functioning. In this empirical study, we explored the relationship between psychopathology and social functioning in two groups of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders with impaired social functioning: homeless and domiciled patients. The patients were thoroughly examined for psychopathology, social functioning, and substance use disorder. The results showed that all domains of psychopathology correlated significantly and negatively with social functioning. The homeless group was worse off than the domiciled group on social functioning scales, but this difference was not reflected in differences in psychopathology or substance use disorder among the two groups. Moreover, the homeless group had more disturbed and aggressive behavior, less contact with relatives, and experienced more childhood trauma and imprisonment compared with the domiciled patients. Our findings seemingly challenge the prevailing explanatory models of impaired social functioning in schizophrenia as being a result of negative symptoms or substance use disorder. Finally, the intertwinement of psychopathology and social functioning in assessment measures should be considered before concluding how specific psychopathological domains affect social functioning in schizophrenia.

Effects of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Small Fiber and Associated Comorbidities from Neuropathy After Multiple Etiologies

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) on pain, neuropathic symptoms, and other health-related metrics in patients with chronic painful peripheral neuropathy (PN) from multiple etiologies. Methods: A prospective single center observational longitudinal cohort study assessed SCS efficacy from April 2023 to May 2024, with follow-ups at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months in 19 patients suffering from the painful polyneuropathy of diverse etiologies: diabetic (DPN), idiopathic (CIAP), chemotherapy-induced (CIPN), and others. Patients were implanted with a neurostimulator (WaveWriter AlphaTM, Boston Scientific Corporation, Valencia, CA, USA) and percutaneous leads targeting the lower limbs (T10-T11) and, if necessary, the upper limbs (C4-C7). Stimulation programming was individualized based on patient preference and best response. Assessments were performed before and after implantation and included pain intensity (VAS and DN4), neuropathic pain symptoms (NPSI and SF-MPQ-2), autonomic symptoms (SFN-SIQ and SAS), sensory and small fiber nerve injury (UENS), functionality (GAF), sleep (CPSI), global impression of change (CGI and PGI), and quality of life (EQ-VAS and EQ-5D). Intra-epidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) via skin biopsy was also performed at baseline (diagnostic) and after 12 months to assess potential small fiber re-growth. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the evolution of treatment success. Results: To date, 19 patients have undergone implantation and completed follow-up. SCS produced a significant consistent and sustained improvement in pain intensity by 49% in DN4 and 76% in VAS, in neuropathic pain symptoms by 73%, in autonomic symptoms by 26-30%, in the sensorimotor physical exam by 8%, in functionality by 44%, in sleep by 74%, and in quality of life (69% for EQ-VAS and 134% EQ-5D). Both clinicians and patients had a meaningful global impression of change, at 1.1 and 1.3, respectively. Distal intra-epidermal nerve fiber density improved by 22% at 12 months while proximal intra-epidermal nerve fiber density decreased by 18%. Conclusions: SCS is an effective therapy for managing various types of PN.

REWRITALIZE your recovery: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the effectiveness of the new recovery-oriented creative writing group intervention REWRITALIZE for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Health institutions advocate for psychosocial and recovery-oriented interventions alongside pharmacological treatment for severe mental illness. Participatory arts interventions appear promising in promoting personal recovery by fostering connectedness, hope, renegotiation of identity, meaning-making, and empowerment. Despite encouraging findings, however, the evidence base remains thin. Further, results from cognitive literature studies suggest possible impact on parameters of clinical recovery, but this has not been studied in clinical contexts. We developed REWRITALIZE, a structured, recovery-oriented, fifteen-session creative writing group intervention led by a professional author alongside a mental health professional. Participants engage with literary forms, write on them, share their texts, and partake in reflective discussions within a supportive, non-stigmatising environment, designed to promote self-expression, playful experimentation, agency, recognition, participatory meaning-making, renegotiation of identity and social engagement. The aim of this project is to evaluate REWRITALIZE for persons with severe mental illness through a randomised controlled trial (RCT) focusing on personal recovery outcomes. Additionally, an embedded pilot RCT will explore additional outcomes i.e., clinical recovery for a subgroup with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

METHODS

The RCT is an investigator-initiated, randomised, two-arm, assessor-blinded, multi-center, waiting-list superiority trial involving 300 participants (age > 18) from six psychiatric centers in regions Capital and Zealand in Denmark, randomised to receive either the creative writing intervention combined with standard treatment or standard treatment alone. Assessments will be conducted before and after the intervention and at six months post intervention. The primary outcome is personal recovery at the end of intervention measured with the questionnaire of the process of recovery. Secondary outcomes include other measures of personal recovery, self-efficacy, mentalising, and quality of life. The pilot RCT, integrated within the RCT, will focus on 70 of the participants aged 18-35 with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, evaluating exploratory measures related to perspective-taking, social cognition, cognitive function, psychosocial functioning, and symptom pressure.

DISCUSSION

This is the first RCT for creative writing groups. It assesses whether REWRITALIZE, as adjunct to standard mental healthcare, is more effective for personal recovery than standard care. If successful, it would provide evidence for the efficacy of REWRITALIZE, potentially enabling its implementation across mental health centers in Denmark.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Privacy (data protection agency): p-2023-14655. Danish National Center for Ethics: 2313949.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT06251908. Registration date 02.02.2024.

Improvement of functioning in patients with schizophrenia: real-world effectiveness of aripiprazole once-monthly (REACT study)

BACKGROUND

Functional impairment affects many patients with schizophrenia. Treatment with the long-acting injectable antipsychotic aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) may help improve functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To explore changes in functioning in patients with schizophrenia who received AOM treatment in observational studies.

METHODS

Here we report functional outcomes in the form of Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores in a pooled analysis of data from two observational studies from Canada (NCT02131415) and Germany (vfa non-interventional studies registry 15960N). Data from 396 patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

At baseline, the mean GAF score was 47.7 (SD 13.4). During 6 months of treatment with AOM, the mean GAF score increased to 59.4 (SD 15.8). Subgroups stratified by patient age (≤35 years/>35 years), sex, disease duration (≤5 years/>5 years) and disease severity at baseline had all significantly improved their GAF at month 6. 51.5% of the patients showed a GAF score increase of at least 10 points, which was regarded as clinically meaningful, and were considered responders.

CONCLUSIONS

These data show that treatment with AOM may help improve patient functioning in a routine treatment setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02131415 (May 6, 2014), vfa non-interventional studies registry 15960N.

What Is the Minimum Clinically Important Change in Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia? PANSS Based Post-hoc Analyses of a Phase III Clinical Trial

Introduction

Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is a measure that defines the minimum amount of change in an objective score of a clinical test that must be reached for that change to be clinically noticeable. We aimed to find the MCID for patients with predominantly negative symptoms of schizophrenia at its earliest occurrence.

Methods

Data of a 26-week long, double-blind study with 454 patients [Positive and Negative Symptom Scale Negative Factor Score (PANSS-FSNS) ≥24, Positive and Negative Symptom Scale Positive Factor Score (PANSS-FSPS) ≤ 19] treated with cariprazine 4.5 mg/d or risperidone 4 mg/d were analyzed. The Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale was used to quantify minimum improvement (CGI-I = 3) and no clinical change (CGI-I = 4) on the PANSS-FSNS, and the MCID was estimated with the following methods: as the mean PANSS-FSNS changes corresponding to the first instance of minimal improvement across all visits (MCID1); as the difference between the PANSS-FSNS change associated with the first instance and the PANSS-FSNS changes associated with the last recorded clinically unchanged status across all visits (MCID2); with the effect size approach (MCID3); as the Youden Index based cut-off value between no clinical change and minimal improvement (MCID4); as the relative likelihood of minimal improvement (MCID5).

Results

The MCID1 and MCID2 resulted in, respectively, a 3.8-point (18.5%) and a 1.5-point (7.3%) decrease from baseline severity on the PANSS-FSNS. Greater values were required for the MCID at later evaluation times. The cut-off between minimum improvement and no clinical change defined by the Youden Index was a-3-point (15%) change in the PANSS-FSNS. The effect size approach indicated the 1.5-point difference between minimally improved and unchanged patients to be a medium effect (ES = 0.6).

Conclusion

Applying different methods led to different results, ranging between 7.3 and 18.5% improvement from the baseline for the MCID at its earliest occurrence in patients with predominantly negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

A Systematic Review of Individual Placement and Support, Employment, and Personal and Clinical Recovery

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to assess associations between Individual Placement and Support (IPS), employment, and personal and clinical recovery among persons with severe mental illness at 18-month follow-up.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IPS with services as usual. Outcomes were self-esteem, empowerment, quality of life, symptoms of depression, negative or psychotic symptoms, anxiety, and level of functioning. A total of six RCTs reported data suitable for meta-analyses, and pooled original data from five studies were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses and analyses of pooled original data indicated that receipt of the IPS intervention alone did not improve any of the recovery outcomes. Participants who worked during the study period, whether or not they were IPS participants, experienced improved negative symptoms, compared with those who did not work (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.56, -0.26). For participants who worked, whether or not they were IPS participants, improvements were also found in level of functioning and quality of life (SMD=0.59, 95% CI=0.42, 0.77 and SMD=0.34, 95% CI=0.14, 0.54, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Employment was associated with improvements in negative symptoms, level of functioning, and quality of life.

Supervised treatment in outpatients for schizophrenia plus (STOPS+): protocol for a cluster randomised trial of a community-based intervention to improve treatment adherence and reduce the treatment gap for schizophrenia in Pakistan

INTRODUCTION

There is a significant treatment gap, with only a few community-based services for people with schizophrenia in low-income and middle-income countries. Poor treatment adherence in schizophrenia is associated with poorer health outcomes, suicide attempts and death. We previously reported the effectiveness of supervised treatment in outpatients for schizophrenia (STOPS) for improving treatment adherence in patients with schizophrenia. However, STOPS was evaluated in a tertiary care setting with no primary care involvement, limiting its generalisability to the wider at-risk population. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of STOPS+ in scaling up the primary care treatment of schizophrenia to a real-world setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The effectiveness of the STOPS+ intervention in improving the level of functioning and medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia in Pakistan will be evaluated using a cluster randomised controlled trial design. We aim to recruit 526 participants from 24 primary healthcare centres randomly allocated in 1:1 ratio to STOPS+ intervention and enhanced treatment as usual arms. Participants will be followed-up for 12 months postrecruitment. The sample size is estimated for two outcomes (1) the primary clinical outcome is level of functioning, measured using the Global Assessment of Functioning scale and (2) the primary process outcome is adherence to treatment regimen measured using a validated measure. An intention-to-treat approach will be used for the primary analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from Keele University Ethical Review Panel (ref: MH-190017) and Khyber Medical University Ethical Review Board (ref: DIR-KMU-EB/ST/000648). The results of the STOPS+ trial will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences and disseminated to local stakeholders and policymakers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN93243890.

Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder

BACKGROUND

Over the decades, a variety of psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD) have been developed. This review updates and replaces an earlier review (Stoffers-Winterling 2012).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychological therapies for people with BPD.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing different psychotherapeutic interventions with treatment-as-usual (TAU; which included various kinds of psychotherapy), waiting list, no treatment or active treatments in samples of all ages, in any setting, with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including individual BPD symptoms, as well as attrition and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 randomised controlled trials (4507 participants), predominantly involving females with mean ages ranging from 14.8 to 45.7 years. More than 16 different kinds of psychotherapy were included, mostly dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and mentalisation-based treatment (MBT). The comparator interventions included treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list, and other active treatments. Treatment duration ranged from one to 36 months. Psychotherapy versus TAU Psychotherapy reduced BPD symptom severity, compared to TAU; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.33; 22 trials, 1244 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -3.6 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.08) on the Zanarini Rating Scale for BPD (range 0 to 36), a clinically relevant reduction in BPD symptom severity (minimal clinical relevant difference (MIREDIF) on this scale is -3.0 points). Psychotherapy may be more effective at reducing self-harm compared to TAU (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.14; 13 trials, 616 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.82 (95% CI -1.25 to 0.35) on the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory Scale (range 0 to 34). The MIREDIF of -1.25 points was not reached. Suicide-related outcomes improved compared to TAU (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; 13 trials, 666 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.11 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.034) on the Suicidal Attempt Self Injury Interview. The MIREDIF of -0.17 points was not reached. Compared to TAU, psychotherapy may result in an improvement in psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.22; 22 trials, 1314 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.8 (95% CI -4.25 to -1.38), on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (range 0 to 100). The MIREDIF of -4.0 points was not reached. Our additional Trial Sequential Analysis on all primary outcomes reaching significance found that the required information size was reached in all cases. A subgroup analysis comparing the different types of psychotherapy compared to TAU showed no clear evidence of a difference for BPD severity and psychosocial functioning. Psychotherapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared to TAU but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.17; 22 trials, 1568 participants; very low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.45 points on the Hamilton Depression Scale (range 0 to 50). The MIREDIF of -3.0 points was not reached. BPD-specific psychotherapy did not reduce attrition compared with TAU. Adverse effects were unclear due to too few data. Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment Greater improvements in BPD symptom severity (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 3 trials, 161 participants), psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.11; 5 trials, 219 participants), and depression (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.34, 6 trials, 239 participants) were observed in participants receiving psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment (all low-quality evidence). No evidence of a difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. Individual treatment approaches DBT and MBT have the highest numbers of primary trials, with DBT as subject of one-third of all included trials, followed by MBT with seven RCTs. Compared to TAU, DBT was more effective at reducing BPD severity (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; 3 trials, 149 participants), self-harm (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.07; 7 trials, 376 participants) and improving psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.03; 6 trials, 225 participants). MBT appears to be more effective than TAU at reducing self-harm (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80; 3 trials, 252 participants), suicidality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04, 0.30, 3 trials, 218 participants) and depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.05, 4 trials, 333 participants). All findings are based on low-quality evidence. For secondary outcomes see review text.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our assessments showed beneficial effects on all primary outcomes in favour of BPD-tailored psychotherapy compared with TAU. However, only the outcome of BPD severity reached the MIREDIF-defined cut-off for a clinically meaningful improvement. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates between the different types of therapies (compared to TAU) . The pooled analysis of psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment found significant improvement on BPD severity, psychosocial functioning and depression at end of treatment, but these findings were based on low-quality evidence, and the true magnitude of these effects is uncertain. No clear evidence of difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. However, compared to TAU, we observed effects in favour of DBT for BPD severity, self-harm and psychosocial functioning and, for MBT, on self-harm and suicidality at end of treatment, but these were all based on low-quality evidence. Therefore, we are unsure whether these effects would alter with the addition of more data.

The use of long-acting Aripiprazole in a multi-center, prospective, uncontrolled, open-label, cohort study in Germany: a report on global assessment of functioning and the WHO wellbeing index

BACKGROUND

In this non-interventional study, the functionality and well-being of patients with schizophrenia with aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) was evaluated under real-life conditions in a naturalistic population.

METHODS

This non-interventional, prospective, multicenter 6-month study included 242 predominantly symptomatically stable patients (mean age 43.1 ± 15.1 years, 55% male) who switched their treatment to AOM after 9.7 (± 22.3) months of oral treatment. Outcome parameters included functionality (Global Assessment of Functioning, GAF), patient's wellbeing (WHO-5 Well-Being Index, WHO-5), and both patient's and clinician's assessment of efficacy and tolerability of AOM. Treatment emergent adverse events (TRAE) were also recorded.

RESULTS

At baseline, the mean GAF score was 47.0 (±13.9), indicating that patients experienced serious impairment in functioning. A continuous increase to 60.2 (±17.0) during treatment was found, with a robust and significant increase already after 4 weeks. At study start, patients reported diminished wellbeing, with a mean score of 10.6 (±5.6) on the WHO-5 scale. During treatment, patient wellbeing increased continuously with strong and significant improvements even after 4 weeks and an overall improvement of 4.8 (±6.9) over the course of 6 months with an endpoint of 15.4 (±5.5). Stratification of these results showed that more pronounced effects were achieved in younger patients ≤35 years (p<0.05 for GAF). The effectiveness and tolerability of AOM was rated good/very good by most patients (89.2 and 93.7%) and physicians (91.4 and 96.8%). Only few TRAEs occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show a significant positive effect after initiation of AOM treatment in predominantly stable patients with schizophrenia on their functioning and wellbeing, which was even more pronounced in patients aged ≤35 years, thereby supporting previous randomized controlled findings under routine conditions in clinical practice.

High Intensity Interval training (HIIT) for people with severe mental illness: A systematic review & meta-analysis of intervention studies- considering diverse approaches for mental and physical recovery

There is a mortality gap of 15 to 20 years for people with severe mental illness (SMI - psychotic spectrum, bipolar, major depressive disorders). Modifiable risk factors include inactivity and low cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). Exercise can improve mental and physical outcomes; optimal type and intensity of exercise for people with SMI has yet to be determined. High Intensity Interval training (HIIT) is an exercise with distinct cardio-metabolic advantages in other disease populations compared to traditional moderate intensity continuous training (MCT). We investigated the feasibility and efficacy of HIIT for people with SMI. Major electronic databases were searched, identifying HIIT studies for adults experiencing SMI.Data on feasibility, safety, study design, sample characteristics, and physical and psychological outcomes were extracted and systematically reviewed. Meta-analyses were conducted within group, pre and post HIIT interventions, and between group, to compare HIIT with control conditions. Nine articles were identified including three pre/post studies, one non randomised and five randomised trials, (366 participants, 45.1% female). HIIT appears as feasible as MCT, with few safety concerns. Following HIIT, there was a moderate improvement in CRF and depression. There was no difference between HIIT and MCT for adherence or CRF.HIIT improved depression more than MCT.

Illness management and recovery: Clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial in community mental health centers

OBJECTIVE

Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a psychosocial intervention with a recovery-oriented approach. The program has been evaluated in different settings; however evidence for the effects of IMR is still deficient. The aim of this trial was to investigate the benefits and harms of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual in Danish patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

METHOD

The trial was designed as a randomized, assessor-blinded, multi-center, clinical trial investigating the IMR program compared with usual treatment. 198 people diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder participated. The primary outcome was the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF-F) at the end of intervention and the secondary and explorative outcomes included severity of symptoms and service utilization.

RESULTS

IMR had no significant effect on functioning, symptoms, substance use or service utilization.

CONCLUSION

This randomized trial contributes to the evidence base of IMR by providing a methodological solid base for its conclusions; however the trial has some important limitations. More research is needed to get a firm answer on the effectiveness of the IMR.

Brexpiprazole in patients with schizophrenia: overview of short- and long-term phase 3 controlled studies

OBJECTIVE

Review efficacy, safety, and tolerability of brexpiprazole in patients with schizophrenia in short- and long-term phase 3 studies.

METHODS

Patients experiencing a current exacerbation of schizophrenia received brexpiprazole in two fixed-dose (2 and 4 mg), 6-week, placebo-controlled studies, one flexible-dose (2-4 mg), 6-week, placebo-control and active reference study, and one fixed-dose (1-4 mg), 52-week, placebo-controlled maintenance study.

RESULTS

The efficacy of brexpiprazole was demonstrated in the two short-term fixed-dose studies with statistically significant improvements from baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score compared with placebo. In the flexible-dose short-term study, treatment with brexpiprazole resulted in numerically greater improvements in PANSS total score than with placebo that approached statistical significance (p=0.056). A meta-analysis of these short-term studies showed a mean change in PANSS total score of -20.1, reflecting a clinically meaningful reduction in symptoms. In the maintenance study, brexpiprazole had a beneficial effect relative to placebo on time to exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse (p<0.0001). For all studies, brexpiprazole demonstrated clinically meaningful treatment effects on the Personal and Social Performance scale. Brexpiprazole had a favourable safety profile, with a relatively low prevalence of activating and sedating side effects. Weight gain in the short-term studies was ~1 kg greater than placebo. No safety concerns were observed with brexpiprazole in laboratory values, electrocardiogram, or vital signs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the results indicate brexpiprazole, used either short-term or as part of a long-term maintenance treatment programme, is an efficacious therapy option in adults with schizophrenia and has a favourable safety/tolerability profile.