Diagnostic Accuracy of Brain-derived Neurotrophic Factor and Nitric Oxide in Patients with Schizophrenia: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and nitric oxide (NO) play multiple roles in the developing and adult CNS. Since BDNF and NO metabolisms are dysregulated in schizophrenia, we measured these markers simultaneously in the blood of schizophrenics and assessed their diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with schizophrenia classified according to demographic characteristics, symptomatologyand therapy and 39 age- and gender-matched healthy controls were enrolled. BDNF was determined by the ELISA technique while the concentration of nitrite/nitrate ([Formula: see text]) was measured by the colorimetric method. RESULTS: Serum BDNF levels were significantly lower (20.38±3.73 ng/mL, P = 1.339E-05), whilst plasma [Formula: see text] concentrations were significantly higher (84.3 (72-121) µmol/L, P=4.357E-08) in patients with schizophrenia than in healthy controls (25.65±4.32 ng/mL; 60.9 (50-76) µmol/L, respectively). The lowest value of BDNF (18.14±3.26 ng/mL) and the highest [Formula: see text] concentration (115.3 (80-138) µmol/L) were found in patients treated with second-generation antipsychotics (SGA). The patients diseased before the age of 24 and the patients suffering for up to one year had significantly lower serum BDNF levels than those diseased after the age of 24 and the patients who were ill longer than one year. Both BDNF and [Formula: see text] showed good diagnostic accuracy, but BDNF had better ROC curve characteristics, especially in patients with negative symptomatology. CONCLUSIONS: BDNF and nitrite/nitrate showed inverse changes in schizophrenic patients. The most pronounced changes were found in patients treated with second-generation antipsychotics. Although BDNF is not specific of schizophrenia, it may be a clinically useful biomarker for the diagnosis of patients expressing predominantly negative symptoms.

Effects of hormone replacement therapy on depressive and anxiety symptoms after oophorectomy.

AIM: To assess the effect of hormone replacement therapy on postoperative depression and anxiety symptoms. METHODS: In observational prospective study 80 women divided into two groups were evaluated: women who received estrogen and androgen replacement therapy after hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy before onset of menopause (35-45 years old) and a control group that consisted of perimenipausal women (45-55 years old). Hormone replacement therapy began one week after surgery. The severity of depression and anxiety was evaluated through the use of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale. Subjects from the study group were interviewed right after the surgical treatment, one, two and three months later. Subjects from the control group were interviewed only once. RESULTS: The women who underwent surgery had a statistically significantly higher score in Hamilton Depression Scale (p les than 0.001) and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (p=0.002) compared to the control perimenopausal women. There was a significant reduction of depressive and anxiety symptoms during hormone replacement therapy. Statistically significant difference in depressive score was found immediately after one month of hormone replacement therapy (first week/one month later: p=0.0057). Statistically significant difference in anxiety score appeared three months after the introduction of hormone therapy (first week/one month later: p=0.309; first week/two months later: p=0.046; first week/three months later: p les than 0.001). Level of serum luteinizing hormone was in correlation with depressive and anxiety score. CONCLUSION: Estrogen-androgen replacement therapy may reduce the risk of psychiatric disorders developing in women with bilateral oophorectomy (indication for hysterectomy with oophorectomy was leiomyomata uteri).

Influence of dialysis modality and membrane flux on insomnia severity in haemodialysis patients.

AIM: Insomnia is an important problem in dialysis patients. A greater prevalence of insomnia in chronic kidney disease compared with non-renal patients suggests a role for uraemic toxins in contributing to insomnia. The aim of this study was to examine if dialysis modality and membrane permeability is associated with the frequency and severity of insomnia in haemodialysis patients. METHODS: In our cross-sectional study, we evaluated 122 patients who were divided into three groups: on-line haemodiafiltration, high flux haemodialysis and low flux haemodialysis. The frequency and severity of insomnia was evaluated with the Insomnia Severity Index. RESULTS: Insomnia was present in 47.5% of all patients. The majority of patients who reported insomnia were receiving low flux haemodialysis (80%), followed by patients on high flux haemodialysis (43.6%) and haemodiafiltration (20.9%). Patients using low flux membranes, had a significantly higher Insomnia Severity Index (11.9 ± 6.6) compared with patients receiving high flux haemodialysis (6.8 ± 6.3) and haemodiafiltration (5.2 ± 7.0). The insomnia severity index did not differ between patients receiving high flux haemodialysis compared with on-line haemodiafiltration. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that different haemodialysis modalities are associated with insomnia and suggests a potential benefit of using high flux membranes.

Influence of dialysis modality and membrane flux on quality of life in hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: The quality of life in patients undergoing hemodialysis is significantly disturbed. There are data that hemodiafiltration (HDF) may be more effective than conventional hemodialysis in the removal of uremic toxins and may reduce frequency and severity of intradialytic and postdialysis adverse symptoms in patients. Also, some researchers suggest advantages of using high-flux membranes compared with low-flux. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine whether hemodialysis modality and membrane flux, independent of membrane biocompatibility, make differences in quality of life in patients. METHODS: In our cross-sectional study, we evaluated 124 patients who were divided, based on therapy, into three groups: online HDF, high-flux hemodialysis, and low-flux hemodialysis. Data were collected using the Short Form-36 questionnaire combined with special questionnaire, which included demographic and clinically related questions. RESULTS: Health-related quality of life was better in patients on HDF compared with patients on hemodialysis, especially compared with low-flux hemodialysis patients in most of the scales and in both dimensions: physical component scale and mental component scale. There were no statistically significant differences in Short Form-36 domains between high-flux hemodialysis and low-flux hemodialysis. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest the potential advantages of HDF with regard to influence on quality of life, which is sufficient to justify further research in prospective and longitudinal study design.