Childhood trauma and increased stress sensitivity in psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: The notion that traumatic experiences in childhood may predict later psychotic outcomes would be strengthened if a plausible mechanism could be demonstrated. Because increased stress sensitivity is part of the behavioural expression of psychosis liability, the possible mediating role of childhood trauma was investigated. METHOD: Fifty patients with psychosis were studied with the experience sampling method to assess stress reactivity in daily life, defined as emotional and psychotic reactivity to stress. Traumatic experiences in childhood were assessed with the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. RESULTS: A significant interaction was found between stress and CT on both negative affect (event stress: ß = 0.04, P < 0.04; activity stress: ß = 0.12, P < 0.001) and psychotic intensity (event stress: ß = 0.06, P < 0.001; activity stress: ß = 0.11, P < 0.001), showing that a history of CT is associated with increased sensitivity to stress. CONCLUSION: A history of childhood trauma in patients with psychosis is associated with increased stress reactivity later in life, suggestive for an underlying process of behavioural sensitization.

Evidence that bipolar disorder is the poor outcome fraction of a common developmental phenotype: an 8-year cohort study in young people.

BACKGROUND: Reported rates of bipolar syndromes are highly variable between studies because of age differences, differences in diagnostic criteria, or restriction of sampling to clinical contacts. METHOD: In 1395 adolescents aged 14-17 years, DSM-IV (hypo)manic episodes (manic and hypomanic episodes combined), use of mental health care, and five ordinal subcategories representing the underlying continuous score of (hypo)manic symptoms ('mania symptom scale') were measured at baseline and approximately 1.5, 4 and 10 years later using the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (DIA-X/M-CIDI). RESULTS: Incidence rates (IRs) of both (hypo)manic episodes and (hypo)manic symptoms (at least one DSM-IV core symptom) were far higher (714/105 person-years and 1720/10(5) person-years respectively) than traditional estimates. In addition, the risk of developing (hypo)manic episodes was very low after the age of 21 years [hazard ratio (HR) 0.031, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.0050-0.19], independent of childhood disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Most individuals with hypomanic and manic episodes were never in care (87% and 62% respectively) and not presenting co-morbid depressive episodes (69% and 60% respectively). The probability of mental health care increased linearly with the number of symptoms on the mania symptom scale. The incidence of the bipolar categories, in particular at the level of clinical morbidity, was strongly associated with previous childhood disorders and male sex. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed, for the first time, that experiencing (hypo)manic symptoms is a common adolescent phenomenon that infrequently predicts mental health care use. The findings suggest that the onset of bipolar disorder can be elucidated by studying the pathway from non-pathological behavioural expression to dysfunction and need for care.

Reduced stress-sensitivity or increased reward experience: the psychological mechanism of response to antidepressant medication.

Depression has often been associated with increased negative affect reactivity to stress (Stress-Sensitivity) and reduced capacity to experience pleasure or positive affect (Reward Experience). To date, no studies have prospectively examined changes in Stress-Sensitivity and Reward Experience following antidepressant treatment. The sample included 83 depressed patients and 22 healthy controls. A randomized controlled trial was carried out with patients receiving either imipramine or placebo for 6 weeks. At baseline and 6 weeks, patients and controls participated in an Experience Sampling procedure, prospectively measuring ecologically valid daily life appraisals of activities and mood states. The course of depression was assessed with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Multilevel linear regression analyses showed that patients had higher negative and lower positive appraisals of activities than controls. In addition, patients showed increased Stress-Sensitivity (negative affect reactivity to negatively appraised activities). Treatment with imipramine decreased Stress-Sensitivity and increased Reward Experience (positive affect reactivity to positively appraised activities). Changes in Stress-Sensitivity and Reward Experience were in part reducible to changes in the process of activity appraisal itself. However, increase in Reward Experience, but not decrease in Stress-Sensitivity, discriminated between patients who responded and those who did not, independent of changes in the process of activity appraisal itself. Response to treatment in depression may be conditional on restoration of hedonic capacity, the cerebral substrate of which requires further study in relation to antidepressant response. A search for (synergistic) antidepressant therapies specifically targeting ability to experience reward may be warranted.

Does reactivity to stress cosegregate with subclinical psychosis? A general population twin study.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the relationship between stress reactivity (trait 1) and psychosis (trait 2) across genetically related persons (cross-twin, cross-trait design) to examine whether stress reactivity is an uncontaminated and unconfounded familial marker of psychosis risk. METHOD: Reactivity to stress and subclinical psychotic experiences were assessed in 289 female, general population twin-pairs. Cross-trait, within-twin associations investigating the association between stress reactivity and subclinical psychotic experiences in each person, were calculated. In addition, cross-trait, cross-twin associations were calculated to assess whether stress reactivity in one twin was moderated by subclinical psychotic experiences in the co-twin. RESULTS: Cross-trait, within-twin analyses showed significant associations between stress reactivity and subclinical psychotic experiences in each person. In addition, the cross-trait cross-twin analyses showed that stress reactivity in twin 1 was significantly moderated by subclinical experiences in the co-twin. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the psychosis phenotype cosegregates with increased emotional reactivity to stress in daily life.

Social cognition and neurocognition as independent domains in psychosis.

Patients with psychosis display alterations in social cognition as well as in the realm of neurocognition. It is unclear, however, to what degree these cognitive domains represent two separate dimensions of liability or the pleiotropic expression of a single deficit. The purpose of the present study was to investigate (i) to what extent alterations in social cognition represent an independent area of vulnerability to psychosis, separate from neurocognitive deficits and (ii) whether social cognition is one construct or can be divided into several subcomponents. Five social cognition and three neurocognitive tasks were completed by 186 participants with different levels of vulnerability for psychosis: 44 patients with psychotic disorder; 47 subjects at familial risk; 41 subjects at psychometric risk and 54 control subjects. The social cognition tasks covered important basic subcomponents of social cognition, i.e. mentalisation (or theory of mind), data gathering bias (jumping to conclusions), source monitoring and attribution style. Neurocognitive tasks assessed speed of information processing, inhibition, cognitive shifting and strategy-driven retrieval from semantic memory. The results of factor analysis suggested that neurocognition and social cognition are two separate areas of vulnerability in psychosis. Furthermore, the social cognition measures lacked significant overlap, suggesting a multidimensional construct. Cognitive liabilities to psychosis are manifold, and include key processes underlying basic person-environment interactions in daily life, independent of cognition quantified by neuropsychological tests.

A momentary assessment study of the reputed emotional phenotype associated with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Stress is postulated to play an essential role in the expression of core borderline symptoms. However, the phenomenology of stress reactivity in borderline personality disorder remains unclear. The current study investigated the phenomenology of stress sensitivity in borderline personality disorder in the flow of daily life and compared this with stress sensitivity in patients suffering from psychotic disorders, a group so far known to report the largest reactivity to stress. METHOD: A total of 44 borderline patients, 42 patients with psychotic disorder and 49 healthy controls were studied with the Experience Sampling Method (a structured diary technique assessing current context and mood in daily life) to assess: (1) appraised subjective stress related to daily events and activities; and (2) emotional reactivity conceptualized as changes in positive and negative affect. RESULTS: Multilevel regression analysis revealed that subjects with borderline personality disorder experienced significantly more emotional reactivity to daily life stress compared with both patients with psychosis and healthy controls, as evidenced by a larger increase in negative affect and a larger decrease in positive affect following stress. CONCLUSION: These results are the first to ecologically validate the incorporation of stress reactive symptoms in the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. Borderline patients continually react stronger than patients with psychosis and healthy controls to small disturbances that continually happen in the natural flow of everyday life. Altered emotional stress reactivity may define borderline personality disorder.

The dynamics of symptomatic and non-symptomatic coping with psychotic symptoms in the flow of daily life.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research has suggested that going along with psychotic symptoms (symptomatic coping) is less effective than other coping strategies with psychotic symptoms. This pilot study aims to validate such findings using a momentary assessment strategy of coping with stress in daily life. METHOD: Patients with psychosis (n = 35) were studied with the Experience Sampling Method (ESM; a structured diary technique) to assess coping with stress in daily life. This was analysed in relation to coping with psychotic symptoms using a previously validated interview (Maastricht Assessment of Coping Strategies). RESULTS: Symptomatic and non-symptomatic coping were negatively associated with each other. Symptomatic coping was negatively associated with the level of coping in daily life, whereas a positive association was apparent for non-symptomatic coping. Non-symptomatic coping, but not symptomatic coping, predicted appraisals of distress associated with psychotic symptoms. CONCLUSION: Effective coping may be associated with the tendency to develop conscious appraisals of distress associated with psychotic symptoms.