The evaluation study for social cognition measures in Japan: Psychometric properties, relationships with social function, and recommendations.

AIM: Patients with schizophrenia can have significant subjective difficulties in social cognition, but few undergo testing or treatment for social cognition. The Social Cognition Psychometric Evaluation (SCOPE) study recommends six social cognitive measures; however, the reliability and validity of these measures in different cultural and linguistic areas has not been adequately examined. We examined the psychometric properties of nine social cognitive measures and the relationship to social function, with the aim of determining the level of recommendation for social cognitive measures in clinical practice in Japan. METHODS: For our test battery, an expert panel previously selected nine measures: the Bell Lysaker Emotion Recognition Task (BLERT); Facial Emotion Selection Test (FEST); Hinting Task (Hinting); Metaphor and Sarcasm Scenario Test (MSST); Intentionality Bias Task (IBT); Ambiguous Intentions and Hostility Questionnaire (AIHQ); Social Attribution Task-Multiple Choice (SAT-MC); SAT-MCII; and Biological Motion (BM) task. In total, 121 outpatients with schizophrenia and 70 healthy controls were included in the analysis, and the results were provided to an expert panel to determine the recommendations for each measure. The quantitative psychological indices of each measure were evaluated for practicality, tolerability, test-retest reliability, correlation with social function, and the incremental validity of social function. RESULTS: Hinting and FEST received the highest recommendations for use in screening, severity assessment, and longitudinal assessment, followed by BLERT, MSST AIHQ, SAT-MC, and SAT-MCII, with IBT and BM receiving the lowest recommendations. CONCLUSION: This study provides a uniform assessment tool that can be used in future international clinical trials for social cognitive impairment.

Cardiovascular adverse reactions associated with escitalopram in patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Despite the anticipated efficacy of escitalopram in treating depression and anxiety in individuals with preexisting cardiovascular conditions, persistent concerns regarding its adverse effects have emerged. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety profile of escitalopram compared with that of placebo in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. Methods: We used a predefined search strategy in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies evaluating adverse cardiovascular reactions to escitalopram in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that provided results on cardiovascular safety outcomes were included. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts and full texts of the individual studies. The risk of bias was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: The primary outcomes were the frequency of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), QTc prolongation, and discontinuation of study medication. We identified 5 RCTs with 773 participants who met the inclusion criteria. Escitalopram was not associated with significantly increased risk of MACE (risk ratio [RR] = 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80 to 4.26; I2 0%; 5 RCTs; n = 773, moderate certainty of evidence), discontinuation of study medication (RR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.84-1.26; I2 0%; 5 RCTs; n = 773, low certainty of evidence), and QTc prolongation (RR = 1.20; 95% CI 0.76-1.90; I2 0%; 4 RCTs; n = 646, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Escitalopram does not significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular adverse reactions compared with placebo in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. However, the presence of wide CIs and the limited number of included studies highlight the need for further studies with larger sample sizes to enhance the precision and reliability of these findings.Systematic review registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [CRD42022298181].