Mismatch Negativity Predicts Remission and Neurocognitive Function in Individuals at Ultra-High Risk for Psychosis.
longitudinal study
mismatch negativity
neurocognitive function
remission
ultra-high risk for psychosis
Journal
Frontiers in psychiatry
ISSN: 1664-0640
Titre abrégé: Front Psychiatry
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101545006
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
18
03
2020
accepted:
21
07
2020
entrez:
28
8
2020
pubmed:
28
8
2020
medline:
28
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the early intervention in psychosis, ultra-high risk (UHR) criteria have been used to identify individuals who are prone to develop psychosis. Although the transition rate to psychosis in individuals at UHR is 10% to 30% within several years, some individuals at UHR present with poor prognoses even without transition occurring. Therefore, it is important to identify biomarkers for predicting the prognosis of individuals at UHR, regardless of transition. We investigated whether mismatch negativity (MMN) in response to both duration deviant stimuli (dMMN) and frequency deviant stimuli (fMMN) could predict prognosis, including remission and neurocognitive function in individuals at UHR. Individuals at UHR (n = 24) and healthy controls (HC; n = 18) participated in this study. In an auditory oddball paradigm, both dMMN and fMMN were measured at baseline. Remission and neurocognitive function after > 180 days were examined in the UHR group. Remission from UHR was defined as functional and symptomatic improvement using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score and Scale of Prodromal Symptoms (SOPS) positive subscales. Neurocognitive function was measured using the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS). We examined differences in MMN amplitude at baseline between those who achieved remission (remitters) and those who did not (non-remitters). Multiple regression analyses were performed to identify predictors for functioning, positive symptoms, and neurocognitive function. Compared with the HC group, the UHR group had a significantly attenuated dMMN amplitude ( Our findings indicate that dMMN and fMMN predicted remission and neurocognitive function, respectively, in individuals at UHR, which suggests that there are both promising biomarker candidates for predicting prognosis in individuals at UHR.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In the early intervention in psychosis, ultra-high risk (UHR) criteria have been used to identify individuals who are prone to develop psychosis. Although the transition rate to psychosis in individuals at UHR is 10% to 30% within several years, some individuals at UHR present with poor prognoses even without transition occurring. Therefore, it is important to identify biomarkers for predicting the prognosis of individuals at UHR, regardless of transition. We investigated whether mismatch negativity (MMN) in response to both duration deviant stimuli (dMMN) and frequency deviant stimuli (fMMN) could predict prognosis, including remission and neurocognitive function in individuals at UHR.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Individuals at UHR (n = 24) and healthy controls (HC; n = 18) participated in this study. In an auditory oddball paradigm, both dMMN and fMMN were measured at baseline. Remission and neurocognitive function after > 180 days were examined in the UHR group. Remission from UHR was defined as functional and symptomatic improvement using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score and Scale of Prodromal Symptoms (SOPS) positive subscales. Neurocognitive function was measured using the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS). We examined differences in MMN amplitude at baseline between those who achieved remission (remitters) and those who did not (non-remitters). Multiple regression analyses were performed to identify predictors for functioning, positive symptoms, and neurocognitive function.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Compared with the HC group, the UHR group had a significantly attenuated dMMN amplitude (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicate that dMMN and fMMN predicted remission and neurocognitive function, respectively, in individuals at UHR, which suggests that there are both promising biomarker candidates for predicting prognosis in individuals at UHR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32848939
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00770
pmc: PMC7416637
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
770Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Fujioka, Kirihara, Koshiyama, Tada, Nagai, Usui, Morita, Kawakami, Morita, Satomura, Koike, Suga, Araki and Kasai.
Références
Am J Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;168(8):806-13
pubmed: 21536691
JAMA Psychiatry. 2013 Nov;70(11):1133-42
pubmed: 24006090
Schizophr Res. 2003 Mar 1;60(1):21-32
pubmed: 12505135
Psychiatry Res. 2014 Apr 30;222(1-2):100-6
pubmed: 24650450
Schizophr Res. 2013 Jan;143(1):116-24
pubmed: 23219075
Clin Neurophysiol. 2002 Jan;113(1):141-50
pubmed: 11801436
Int J Psychophysiol. 2019 Nov;145:5-14
pubmed: 30831138
Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):980-7
pubmed: 26444073
Am J Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;168(8):800-5
pubmed: 21498462
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012 Mar;69(3):220-9
pubmed: 22393215
Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Jun 1;77(11):951-8
pubmed: 25636178
Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Aug;125(8):1604-17
pubmed: 24508191
Psychiatr Q. 1999 Winter;70(4):273-87
pubmed: 10587984
Schizophr Bull. 2003;29(4):703-15
pubmed: 14989408
Front Psychiatry. 2013 Sep 23;4:115
pubmed: 24069006
Schizophr Res. 2014 Jul;156(2-3):266-71
pubmed: 24815568
Schizophr Res. 2004 Jun 1;68(2-3):283-97
pubmed: 15099610
Sci Rep. 2017 May 23;7(1):2258
pubmed: 28536477
PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e61152
pubmed: 23577204
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54080
pubmed: 23349791
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;62(2):127-36
pubmed: 15699289
Schizophr Res. 2013 Nov;150(2-3):547-54
pubmed: 24012461
Clin Neurophysiol. 2009 Mar;120(3):453-63
pubmed: 19181570
Schizophr Bull. 2018 Apr 6;44(3):575-583
pubmed: 29036493
Schizophr Res. 2017 Dec;190:32-38
pubmed: 28314681
Clin Neurophysiol. 2016 Feb;127(2):1387-1394
pubmed: 26699665
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2008 Jan 1;32(1):95-9
pubmed: 17764800
Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Sep;207(3):198-206
pubmed: 26329563
Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Feb;128(2):331-339
pubmed: 28056388
Schizophr Bull. 2007 May;33(3):772-81
pubmed: 17420177
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2005 Oct;59(5):517-26
pubmed: 16194252
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2015 May;1344:105-19
pubmed: 25752648
Neuroimage Clin. 2016 Aug 13;12:542-549
pubmed: 27672558
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2007 Dec;61(6):602-9
pubmed: 18081619
JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Jan 1;74(1):37-46
pubmed: 27926742
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2017 May;71(5):318-327
pubmed: 28294477
Schizophr Res. 2018 May;195:378-384
pubmed: 28986006
Clin Neurophysiol. 2012 Oct;123(10):1942-9
pubmed: 22608970
Schizophr Res. 2015 May;164(1-3):1-7
pubmed: 25728833
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Oct 15;93(21):11962-7
pubmed: 8876245
Neuroimage Clin. 2014 Oct 01;6:424-37
pubmed: 25379456
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006 Jun;60(3):332-9
pubmed: 16732750
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012 Jun;69(6):562-71
pubmed: 22664547
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2015 Aug;69(8):440-7
pubmed: 25601291
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014 Jun;24(6):865-73
pubmed: 24636460
Schizophr Bull. 2011 Jan;37(1):131-40
pubmed: 19561058
J Neurosci Methods. 2004 Mar 15;134(1):9-21
pubmed: 15102499
Psychiatry Res. 2013 Oct 30;209(3):266-72
pubmed: 23871169
Br J Psychiatry. 2014 Aug;205(2):88-94
pubmed: 25252316