We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Cannabis use severely affects the outcome of people with psychotic disorders, yet there is a lack of treatments. To address this, in 2019 the National Health Service (NHS) Cannabis Clinic for Psychosis (CCP) was developed to support adults suffering from psychosis to reduce and/or stop their cannabis use.
Aims
Examine outcome data from the first 46 individuals to complete the CCP's intervention.
Method
The sample (N = 46) consisted of adults (aged ≥ 18) with psychosis under the care of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, referred to the CCP between January 2020 and February 2023, who completed their intervention by September 2023. Clinical and functional measures were collected before (T0) and after (T1) the CCP intervention (one-to-one sessions and peer group attendance). Primary outcomes were changes in the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test-Revised (CUDIT-R) score and pattern of cannabis use. Secondary outcomes included T0–T1 changes in measures of delusions, paranoia, depression, anxiety and functioning.
Results
A reduction in the mean CUDIT-R score was observed between T0 (mean difference = 17.10, 95% CI = 15.54–18.67) and T1, with 73.91% of participants achieving abstinence and 26.09% reducing the frequency and potency of their use. Significant improvements in all clinical and functional outcomes were observed, with 90.70% being in work or education at T1 compared with 8.70% at T0. The variance in CUDIT-R scores explained between 34 and 64% of the variance in our secondary measures.
Conclusions
The CCP intervention is a feasible strategy to support cannabis use cessation/reduction and improve clinical and functional outcomes of people with psychotic disorders.
The association between cannabis and psychosis is established, but the role of underlying genetics is unclear. We used data from the EU-GEI case-control study and UK Biobank to examine the independent and combined effect of heavy cannabis use and schizophrenia polygenic risk score (PRS) on risk for psychosis.
Methods
Genome-wide association study summary statistics from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium and the Genomic Psychiatry Cohort were used to calculate schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder (CUD) PRS for 1098 participants from the EU-GEI study and 143600 from the UK Biobank. Both datasets had information on cannabis use.
Results
In both samples, schizophrenia PRS and cannabis use independently increased risk of psychosis. Schizophrenia PRS was not associated with patterns of cannabis use in the EU-GEI cases or controls or UK Biobank cases. It was associated with lifetime and daily cannabis use among UK Biobank participants without psychosis, but the effect was substantially reduced when CUD PRS was included in the model. In the EU-GEI sample, regular users of high-potency cannabis had the highest odds of being a case independently of schizophrenia PRS (OR daily use high-potency cannabis adjusted for PRS = 5.09, 95% CI 3.08–8.43, p = 3.21 × 10−10). We found no evidence of interaction between schizophrenia PRS and patterns of cannabis use.
Conclusions
Regular use of high-potency cannabis remains a strong predictor of psychotic disorder independently of schizophrenia PRS, which does not seem to be associated with heavy cannabis use. These are important findings at a time of increasing use and potency of cannabis worldwide.
Positive, negative and disorganised psychotic symptom dimensions are associated with clinical and developmental variables, but differing definitions complicate interpretation. Additionally, some variables have had little investigation.
Aims
To investigate associations of psychotic symptom dimensions with clinical and developmental variables, and familial aggregation of symptom dimensions, in multiple samples employing the same definitions.
Method
We investigated associations between lifetime symptom dimensions and clinical and developmental variables in two twin and two general psychosis samples. Dimension symptom scores and most other variables were from the Operational Criteria Checklist. We used logistic regression in generalised linear mixed models for combined sample analysis (n = 875 probands). We also investigated correlations of dimensions within monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs concordant for psychosis (n = 96 pairs).
Results
Higher symptom scores on all three dimensions were associated with poor premorbid social adjustment, never marrying/cohabiting and earlier age at onset, and with a chronic course, most strongly for the negative dimension. The positive dimension was also associated with Black and minority ethnicity and lifetime cannabis use; the negative dimension with male gender; and the disorganised dimension with gradual onset, lower premorbid IQ and substantial within twin-pair correlation. In secondary analysis, disorganised symptoms in MZ twin probands were associated with lower premorbid IQ in their co-twins.
Conclusions
These results confirm associations that dimensions share in common and strengthen the evidence for distinct associations of co-occurring positive symptoms with ethnic minority status, negative symptoms with male gender and disorganised symptoms with substantial familial influences, which may overlap with influences on premorbid IQ.
A clinical tool to estimate the risk of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) in people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) would inform early detection of TRS and overcome the delay of up to 5 years in starting TRS medication.
Aims
To develop and evaluate a model that could predict the risk of TRS in routine clinical practice.
Method
We used data from two UK-based FEP cohorts (GAP and AESOP-10) to develop and internally validate a prognostic model that supports identification of patients at high-risk of TRS soon after FEP diagnosis. Using sociodemographic and clinical predictors, a model for predicting risk of TRS was developed based on penalised logistic regression, with missing data handled using multiple imputation. Internal validation was undertaken via bootstrapping, obtaining optimism-adjusted estimates of the model's performance. Interviews and focus groups with clinicians were conducted to establish clinically relevant risk thresholds and understand the acceptability and perceived utility of the model.
Results
We included seven factors in the prediction model that are predominantly assessed in clinical practice in patients with FEP. The model predicted treatment resistance among the 1081 patients with reasonable accuracy; the model's C-statistic was 0.727 (95% CI 0.723–0.732) prior to shrinkage and 0.687 after adjustment for optimism. Calibration was good (expected/observed ratio: 0.999; calibration-in-the-large: 0.000584) after adjustment for optimism.
Conclusions
We developed and internally validated a prediction model with reasonably good predictive metrics. Clinicians, patients and carers were involved in the development process. External validation of the tool is needed followed by co-design methodology to support implementation in early intervention services.
Edited by
David Kingdon, University of Southampton,Paul Rowlands, Derbyshire Healthcare NHS foundation Trust,George Stein, Emeritus of the Princess Royal University Hospital
Psychosis is characterized by distortions in thinking (e.g. fixed, false beliefs), in perception (e.g. hearing voices or less commonly seeing things that are not there), emotions, language, sense of self and behaviour. Although it used to be thought that schizophrenia was a discrete entity, much recent evidence has shown that this is not so. Schizophrenia does not have clear boundaries; rather, it merges into schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder on the one hand and into schizotypal and paranoid personality on the other. It is best considered as the severe form of psychosis. The different psychotic disorders share some of the same risk factors and are sometimes associated with cognitive impairments, co-existing mental health conditions, substance misuse and physical health problems; the latter often develop over the course of the illness.
In this chapter, we review genetic and then environmental risk factors for psychosis. Much knowledge has accumulated regarding both in the last two decades. We now know that the aetiology of psychosis is multifactorial. Genetic and environmental factors occasionally act alone but usually in combination as well as operate at a number of levels and over time to influence an individual’s likelihood of developing psychotic symptoms.
Boduch-Grabka and Lev-Ari (2021) showed that so-called “native” British-English speakers judged statements produced by Polish-accented English speakers as less likely to be true than statements produced by “native” speakers and that prior exposure to Polish-accented English speech modulates this effect. Given the real-world consequences of this study, as well as our commitment to assessing and mitigating linguistic biases, we conducted a close replication, extending the work by collecting additional information about participants’ explicit biases towards Polish migrants in the UK. We did not reproduce the original pattern of results, observing no effect of speaker accent or exposure on comprehension or veracity. In addition, the measure of explicit bias did not predict differential veracity ratings for Polish- and British-accented speech. Although the current pattern of results differs from that of the original study, our finding that neither comprehension nor veracity were impacted by accent or exposure condition is not inconsistent with the Boduch-Grabka and Lev-Ari (2021) processing difficulty account of the accent-based veracity judgment effect. We explore possible explanations for the lack of replication and future directions for this work.
Incidence of first-episode psychosis (FEP) varies substantially across geographic regions. Phenotypes of subclinical psychosis (SP), such as psychotic-like experiences (PLEs) and schizotypy, present several similarities with psychosis. We aimed to examine whether SP measures varied across different sites and whether this variation was comparable with FEP incidence within the same areas. We further examined contribution of environmental and genetic factors to SP.
Methods
We used data from 1497 controls recruited in 16 different sites across 6 countries. Factor scores for several psychopathological dimensions of schizotypy and PLEs were obtained using multidimensional item response theory models. Variation of these scores was assessed using multi-level regression analysis to estimate individual and between-sites variance adjusting for age, sex, education, migrant, employment and relational status, childhood adversity, and cannabis use. In the final model we added local FEP incidence as a second-level variable. Association with genetic liability was examined separately.
Results
Schizotypy showed a large between-sites variation with up to 15% of variance attributable to site-level characteristics. Adding local FEP incidence to the model considerably reduced the between-sites unexplained schizotypy variance. PLEs did not show as much variation. Overall, SP was associated with younger age, migrant, unmarried, unemployed and less educated individuals, cannabis use, and childhood adversity. Both phenotypes were associated with genetic liability to schizophrenia.
Conclusions
Schizotypy showed substantial between-sites variation, being more represented in areas where FEP incidence is higher. This supports the hypothesis that shared contextual factors shape the between-sites variation of psychosis across the spectrum.
Edited by
Deepak Cyril D'Souza, Staff Psychiatrist, VA Connecticut Healthcare System; Professor of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine,David Castle, University of Tasmania, Australia,Sir Robin Murray, Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, Psychosis Service at the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust; Professor of Psychiatric Research at the Institute of Psychiatry
In this chapter, we discuss whether there is a causal relationship between cannabis use and psychosis in terms of the criteria of causality proposed by Bradford-Hill. We conclude that the evidence for each of the criteria ranges from consistent in the context of strength, consistency, and temporality; strong in the context of biological gradient and experimental evidence; plausible in the context of biological plausibility and coherence. The association is not specific for psychosis but also includes depression and suicidal thoughts, and it is unclear whether the analogy criteira are appropriate. Thus, the epidemiological, experimental, and genetic evidence suggests that cannabis, particularly high potency cannabis, is a contributing factor to the incidence of psychosis in the population. In consequence, over the last 20 years there has been a shift in the argument from ‘whether there is a causal relationship between cannabis and psychosis’ to considering the magnitude of this relationship.
Edited by
Deepak Cyril D'Souza, Staff Psychiatrist, VA Connecticut Healthcare System; Professor of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine,David Castle, University of Tasmania, Australia,Sir Robin Murray, Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, Psychosis Service at the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust; Professor of Psychiatric Research at the Institute of Psychiatry
The fact that not all cannabis users will develop psychosis suggests that cannabis may exert its causal role only in pre-disposed individuals. However, since the number of people who use cannabis worldwide is so high, those who will eventually develop psychosis, whilst still a minority, represent a large number. The evidence indicates that different patterns of cannabis use have a different impact on the risk of developing psychosis, with young age at first use, and a higher frequency of use of high-potency types of cannabis indicated as the most important risk factors. Nonetheless, given the complex nature of the association between cannabis use and psychosis, it is hard to determine which cannabis users will eventually develop psychosis. The link between cannabis use and schizophrenia is unlikely to be just the result of a genetic predisposition, it is more likely the result of Gene x Environment inter-play.
Edited by
Deepak Cyril D'Souza, Staff Psychiatrist, VA Connecticut Healthcare System; Professor of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine,David Castle, University of Tasmania, Australia,Sir Robin Murray, Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, Psychosis Service at the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust; Professor of Psychiatric Research at the Institute of Psychiatry
Does cannabis use play a causal role in subsequent violence? The available research suggests an association between cannabis use and risk of being a perpetrator of violence. Indeed, cannabis users are at increased risk of carrying out severe violence, including aggravated assault, sexual aggression, fighting, and robbery. There is also evidence on the association between cannabis use and subsequent victimization (e.g., intimate partner violence). Individuals with severe mental disorders also show an incremented risk of violence, considering their higher rate of cannabis use compared to the general population. Possible mechanisms underlying this association involve (1) the neurobiological effect of the substance after acute use, but also during abstinence and withdrawal, and (2) social factors, such as the violent/criminal lifestyles of cannabis users. However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the current literature. Most available studies are cross-sectional and retrospective, so it remains difficult to disentangle the direction of the association. Despite that, cannabis use may be a useful preventive intervention target, particularly among at-risk groups such as psychiatric patients.
Childhood adversity and cannabis use are considered independent risk factors for psychosis, but whether different patterns of cannabis use may be acting as mediator between adversity and psychotic disorders has not yet been explored. The aim of this study is to examine whether cannabis use mediates the relationship between childhood adversity and psychosis.
Methods
Data were utilised on 881 first-episode psychosis patients and 1231 controls from the European network of national schizophrenia networks studying Gene–Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) study. Detailed history of cannabis use was collected with the Cannabis Experience Questionnaire. The Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse Questionnaire was used to assess exposure to household discord, sexual, physical or emotional abuse and bullying in two periods: early (0–11 years), and late (12–17 years). A path decomposition method was used to analyse whether the association between childhood adversity and psychosis was mediated by (1) lifetime cannabis use, (2) cannabis potency and (3) frequency of use.
Results
The association between household discord and psychosis was partially mediated by lifetime use of cannabis (indirect effect coef. 0.078, s.e. 0.022, 17%), its potency (indirect effect coef. 0.059, s.e. 0.018, 14%) and by frequency (indirect effect coef. 0.117, s.e. 0.038, 29%). Similar findings were obtained when analyses were restricted to early exposure to household discord.
Conclusions
Harmful patterns of cannabis use mediated the association between specific childhood adversities, like household discord, with later psychosis. Children exposed to particularly challenging environments in their household could benefit from psychosocial interventions aimed at preventing cannabis misuse.
While cannabis use is a well-established risk factor for psychosis, little is known about any association between reasons for first using cannabis (RFUC) and later patterns of use and risk of psychosis.
Methods
We used data from 11 sites of the multicentre European Gene-Environment Interaction (EU-GEI) case–control study. 558 first-episode psychosis patients (FEPp) and 567 population controls who had used cannabis and reported their RFUC.
We ran logistic regressions to examine whether RFUC were associated with first-episode psychosis (FEP) case–control status. Path analysis then examined the relationship between RFUC, subsequent patterns of cannabis use, and case–control status.
Results
Controls (86.1%) and FEPp (75.63%) were most likely to report ‘because of friends’ as their most common RFUC. However, 20.1% of FEPp compared to 5.8% of controls reported: ‘to feel better’ as their RFUC (χ2 = 50.97; p < 0.001). RFUC ‘to feel better’ was associated with being a FEPp (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.03–2.95) while RFUC ‘with friends’ was associated with being a control (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37–0.83). The path model indicated an association between RFUC ‘to feel better’ with heavy cannabis use and with FEPp-control status.
Conclusions
Both FEPp and controls usually started using cannabis with their friends, but more patients than controls had begun to use ‘to feel better’. People who reported their reason for first using cannabis to ‘feel better’ were more likely to progress to heavy use and develop a psychotic disorder than those reporting ‘because of friends’.
Cannabis use has been linked to psychotic disorders but this association has been primarily observed in the Global North. This study investigates patterns of cannabis use and associations with psychoses in three Global South (regions within Latin America, Asia, Africa and Oceania) settings.
Methods
Case–control study within the International Programme of Research on Psychotic Disorders (INTREPID) II conducted between May 2018 and September 2020. In each setting, we recruited over 200 individuals with an untreated psychosis and individually-matched controls (Kancheepuram India; Ibadan, Nigeria; northern Trinidad). Controls, with no past or current psychotic disorder, were individually-matched to cases by 5-year age group, sex and neighbourhood. Presence of psychotic disorder assessed using the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry and cannabis exposure measured by the World Health Organisation Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST).
Results
Cases reported higher lifetime and frequent cannabis use than controls in each setting. In Trinidad, cannabis use was associated with increased odds of psychotic disorder: lifetime cannabis use (adj. OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.99–2.53); frequent cannabis use (adj. OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.10–3.60); cannabis dependency (as measured by high ASSIST score) (adj. OR 4.70, 95% CI 1.77–12.47), early age of first use (adj. OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.03–3.27). Cannabis use in the other two settings was too rare to examine associations.
Conclusions
In line with previous studies, we found associations between cannabis use and the occurrence and age of onset of psychoses in Trinidad. These findings have implications for strategies for prevention of psychosis.
Extensive evidence indicates that rates of psychotic disorder are elevated in more urban compared with less urban areas, but this evidence largely originates from Northern Europe. It is unclear whether the same association holds globally. This study examined the association between urban residence and rates of psychotic disorder in catchment areas in India (Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu), Nigeria (Ibadan, Oyo), and Northern Trinidad.
Methods
Comprehensive case detection systems were developed based on extensive pilot work to identify individuals aged 18–64 with previously untreated psychotic disorders residing in each catchment area (May 2018–April/May/July 2020). Area of residence and basic demographic details were collected for eligible cases. We compared rates of psychotic disorder in the more v. less urban administrative areas within each catchment area, based on all cases detected, and repeated these analyses while restricting to recent onset cases (<2 years/<5 years).
Results
We found evidence of higher overall rates of psychosis in more urban areas within the Trinidadian catchment area (IRR: 3.24, 95% CI 2.68–3.91), an inverse association in the Nigerian catchment area (IRR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.51–0.91) and no association in the Indian catchment area (IRR: 1.18, 95% CI 0.93–1.52). When restricting to recent onset cases, we found a modest positive association in the Indian catchment area.
Conclusions
This study suggests that urbanicity is associated with higher rates of psychotic disorder in some but not all contexts outside of Northern Europe. Future studies should test candidate mechanisms that may underlie the associations observed, such as exposure to violence.
Child maltreatment (CM) and migrant status are independently associated with psychosis. We examined prevalence of CM by migrant status and tested whether migrant status moderated the association between CM and first-episode psychosis (FEP). We further explored whether differences in CM exposure contributed to variations in the incidence rates of FEP by migrant status.
Methods
We included FEP patients aged 18–64 years in 14 European sites and recruited controls representative of the local populations. Migrant status was operationalized according to generation (first/further) and region of origin (Western/non-Western countries). The reference population was composed by individuals of host country's ethnicity. CM was assessed with Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Prevalence ratios of CM were estimated using Poisson regression. We examined the moderation effect of migrant status on the odds of FEP by CM fitting adjusted logistic regressions with interaction terms. Finally, we calculated the population attributable fractions (PAFs) for CM by migrant status.
Results
We examined 849 FEP cases and 1142 controls. CM prevalence was higher among migrants, their descendants and migrants of non-Western heritage. Migrant status, classified by generation (likelihood test ratio:χ2 = 11.3, p = 0.004) or by region of origin (likelihood test ratio:χ2 = 11.4, p = 0.003), attenuated the association between CM and FEP. PAFs for CM were higher among all migrant groups compared with the reference populations.
Conclusions
The higher exposure to CM, despite a smaller effect on the odds of FEP, accounted for a greater proportion of incident FEP cases among migrants. Policies aimed at reducing CM should consider the increased vulnerability of specific subpopulations.
There is evidence of an association between life events and psychosis in Europe, North America and Australasia, but few studies have examined this association in the rest of the world.
Aims
To test the association between exposure to life events and psychosis in catchment areas in India, Nigeria, and Trinidad and Tobago.
Method
We conducted a population-based, matched case–control study of 194 participants in India, Nigeria, and Trinidad and Tobago. Cases were recruited through comprehensive population-based, case-finding strategies. The Harvard Trauma Questionnaire was used to measure life events. The Screening Schedule for Psychosis was used to screen for psychotic symptoms. The association between psychosis and having experienced life events (experienced or witnessed) was estimated by conditional logistic regression.
Results
There was no overall evidence of an association between psychosis and having experienced or witnessed life events (adjusted odds ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.62–2.28). We found evidence of effect modification by site (P = 0.002), with stronger evidence of an association in India (adjusted odds ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.03–2.34), inconclusive evidence in Nigeria (adjusted odds ratio 1.17, 95% CI 0.95–1.45) and evidence of an inverse association in Trinidad and Tobago (adjusted odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.44–0.97).
Conclusions
This study found no overall evidence of an association between witnessing or experiencing life events and psychotic disorder across three culturally and economically diverse countries. There was preliminary evidence that the association varies between settings.
Schizophrenia (SZ), bipolar disorder (BD) and depression (D) run in families. This susceptibility is partly due to hundreds or thousands of common genetic variants, each conferring a fractional risk. The cumulative effects of the associated variants can be summarised as a polygenic risk score (PRS). Using data from the EUropean Network of national schizophrenia networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) first episode case–control study, we aimed to test whether PRSs for three major psychiatric disorders (SZ, BD, D) and for intelligent quotient (IQ) as a neurodevelopmental proxy, can discriminate affective psychosis (AP) from schizophrenia-spectrum disorder (SSD).
Methods
Participants (842 cases, 1284 controls) from 16 European EU-GEI sites were successfully genotyped following standard quality control procedures. The sample was stratified based on genomic ancestry and analyses were done only on the subsample representing the European population (573 cases, 1005 controls). Using PRS for SZ, BD, D, and IQ built from the latest available summary statistics, we performed simple or multinomial logistic regression models adjusted for 10 principal components for the different clinical comparisons.
Results
In case–control comparisons PRS-SZ, PRS-BD and PRS-D distributed differentially across psychotic subcategories. In case–case comparisons, both PRS-SZ [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–0.92] and PRS-D (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.06–1.61) differentiated AP from SSD; and within AP categories, only PRS-SZ differentiated BD from psychotic depression (OR = 2.14, 95% CI 1.23–3.74).
Conclusions
Combining PRS for severe psychiatric disorders in prediction models for psychosis phenotypes can increase discriminative ability and improve our understanding of these phenotypes. Our results point towards the potential usefulness of PRSs in specific populations such as high-risk or early psychosis phases.
Antipsychotic treatment resistance affects up to a third of individuals with schizophrenia. Of those affected, 70–84% are reported to be treatment resistant from the outset. This raises the possibility that the neurobiological mechanisms of treatment resistance emerge before the onset of psychosis and have a neurodevelopmental origin. Neuropsychological investigations can offer important insights into the nature, origin and pathophysiology of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), but methodological limitations in a still emergent field of research have obscured the neuropsychological discriminability of TRS. We report on the first systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate neuropsychological differences between TRS patients and treatment-responsive controls across 17 published studies (1864 participants). Five meta-analyses were performed in relation to (1) executive function, (2) general cognitive function, (3) attention, working memory and processing speed, (4) verbal memory and learning, and (5) visual−spatial memory and learning. Small-to-moderate effect sizes emerged for all domains. Similarly to previous comparisons between unselected, drug-naïve and first-episode schizophrenia samples v. healthy controls in the literature, the largest effect size was observed in verbal memory and learning [dl = −0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.29 to −0.76; z = 4.42; p < 0.001]. A sub-analysis of language-related functions, extracted from across the primary domains, yielded a comparable effect size (dl = −0.53, 95% CI −0.82 to −0.23; z = 3.45; p < 0.001). Manipulating our sampling strategy to include or exclude samples selected for clozapine response did not affect the pattern of findings. Our findings are discussed in relation to possible aetiological contributions to TRS.
A history of childhood adversity is associated with psychotic disorder, with an increase in risk according to the number of exposures. However, it is not known why only some exposed individuals go on to develop psychosis. One possibility is pre-existing polygenic vulnerability. Here, we investigated, in the largest sample of first-episode psychosis (FEP) cases to date, whether childhood adversity and high polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia (SZ-PRS) combine synergistically to increase the risk of psychosis, over and above the effect of each alone.
Methods
We assigned a schizophrenia-polygenic risk score (SZ-PRS), calculated from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC2), to all participants in a sample of 384 FEP patients and 690 controls from the case–control component of the EU-GEI study. Only participants of European ancestry were included in the study. A history of childhood adversity was collected using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ). Synergistic effects were estimated using the interaction contrast ratio (ICR) [odds ratio (OR)exposure and PRS − ORexposure − ORPRS + 1] with adjustment for potential confounders.
Results
There was some evidence that the combined effect of childhood adversities and polygenic risk was greater than the sum of each alone, as indicated by an ICR greater than zero [i.e. ICR 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.29 to 3.85]. Examining subtypes of childhood adversities, the strongest synergetic effect was observed for physical abuse (ICR 6.25, 95% CI −6.25 to 20.88).
Conclusions
Our findings suggest possible synergistic effects of genetic liability and childhood adversity experiences in the onset of FEP, but larger samples are needed to increase precision of estimates.
People with psychosis experience cardiometabolic comorbidities, including metabolic syndrome, coronary heart disease and diabetes. These physical comorbidities have been linked to diet, inactivity and the effects of the illness itself, including disorganisation, impairments in global function and amotivation associated with negative symptoms of schizophrenia or co-morbid depression.
Methods
We aimed to describe the dietary intake, physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour patterns of a sample of patients with established psychosis participating in the Improving Physical Health and Reducing Substance Use in Severe Mental Illness (IMPaCT) randomised controlled trial, and to explore the relationship between these lifestyle factors and mental health symptomatology.
Results
A majority of participants had poor dietary quality, low in fruit and vegetables and high in discretionary foods. Only 29.3% completed ⩾150 min of moderate and/or vigorous activity per week and 72.2% spent ⩾6 h per day sitting. Cross-sectional associations between negative symptoms, global function, and PA and sedentary behaviour were observed. Additionally, those with more negative symptoms receiving IMPaCT therapy had fewer positive changes in PA from baseline to 12-month follow-up than those with fewer negative symptoms at baseline.
Conclusion
These results highlight the need for the development of multidisciplinary lifestyle and exercise interventions to target eating habits, PA and sedentary behaviour, and the need for further research on how to adapt lifestyle interventions to baseline mental status. Negative symptoms in particular may reduce patient's responses to lifestyle interventions.