Improving social perception in schizophrenia: the role of oxytocin.

Previous research has shown that patients with schizophrenia are impaired in a wide range of social cognitive abilities, including emotion recognition, empathy for others, and mental perspective-taking. Recent studies suggest that a dysfunction of the oxytocinergic system contributes to the social impairment in schizophrenia. Accordingly, the present study sought to examine whether patients with schizophrenia would improve in a social perception task after taking a single dose of oxytocin, as compared to a placebo. Thirty-five patients diagnosed with schizophrenia were compared with 46 psychologically healthy matched controls on their recognition of kinship and intimacy, using the Interpersonal Perception Task. All participants received a single intranasal dose of 24 IU oxytocin or placebo, one week apart. Overall, the participants were more accurate in judging intimacy and kinship following the administration of oxytocin, as opposed to a placebo. However, when comparing patients with controls, only the recognition of kinship improved significantly in the patient group, whereas no such effect was observed in the control group or in the recognition of intimacy in either group. This is one of the first studies to demonstrate that social perception in schizophrenia can be improved by the administration of oxytocin and that patients show a greater treatment effect than controls.

The use of antidepressants for bipolar depression.

Clinical Dilemma: You have diagnosed a 33-year-old male with bipolar disorder and initiated lithium treatment and psycho-social therapy. Two months later his lithium level is within the therapeutic range but his symptoms and function level correlate with moderate depressive episode. Is there a place for adjunctive antidepressant medication?

Empiric antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens for community acquired pneumonia in hospitalized adults.

BACKGROUND: Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is caused by various pathogens, traditionally divided to 'typical' and 'atypical'. Initial antibiotic treatment of CAP is usually empirical, customarily covering both typical and atypical pathogens. To date, no sufficient evidence exists to support this broad coverage, while limiting coverage is bound to reduce toxicity, resistance and expense. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and need of adding antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens in hospitalized patients with CAP, in terms of mortality and successful treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Group's specialized register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2007); and EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2007). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of adult patients hospitalized due to CAP, comparing antibiotic regimens with atypical antibiotic coverage to a regimen without atypical antibiotic coverage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently appraised the quality of each trial and extracted the data from included trials. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated, assuming an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis for the outcome measures. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty five trials were included, encompassing 5244 randomized patients. There was no difference in mortality between the atypical arm and the non-atypical arm (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.56). The atypical arm showed an insignificant trend toward clinical success and a significant advantage to bacteriological eradication, which disappeared when evaluating methodologically high-quality studies alone. Clinical success for the atypical arm was significantly higher for Legionella pneumophilae (L. pneumophilae) and non-significantly lower for pneumococcal pneumonia. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of (total) adverse events, or those requiring discontinuation of treatment. However, gastrointestinal events were more common in the non-atypical arm (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99). All but two included trials compared a single atypical antibiotic to a beta-lactam, while no trials assessing the addition of an atypical antibiotic to a beta-lactam were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No benefit of survival or clinical efficacy was shown to empirical atypical coverage in hospitalized patients with CAP. This conclusion relates mostly to the comparison of quinolone monotherapy to beta-lactams (BL) or cephalosporins. Further trials, comparing BL or cephalosporins therapy to BL or cephalosporins combined with a macrolide in this population, using mortality as its primary outcome, should be performed.

Empiric antibiotic coverage of atypical pathogens for community acquired pneumonia in hospitalized adults.

BACKGROUND: Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) is caused by various pathogens, traditionally divided to 'typical' and 'atypical'. Initial antibiotic treatment of CAP is usually empirical, customarily covering both typical and atypical pathogens. To date, no sufficient evidence exists to support this broad coverage, while limiting coverage is bound to reduce toxicity, resistance and expense. OBJECTIVES: Assess the efficacy and need of adding antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens in hospitalized patients with CAP, in terms of mortality and successful treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Group's specialized register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to January Week 2 2005); and EMBASE (January 1980 to January Week 2 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of adult patients hospitalized due to CAP, comparing antibiotic regimens with atypical antibiotic coverage to a regimen without atypical antibiotic coverage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of each trial and extracted the data from included trials. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated, assuming an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis for the outcome measures. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty four trials were included, encompassing 5015 randomized patients. There was no difference in mortality between the atypical arm and the non-atypical arm (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.54). The atypical arm showed an insignificant trend toward clinical success and a significant advantage to bacteriological eradication, which disappeared when evaluating methodologically high-quality studies alone. Clinical success for the atypical arm was significantly higher for Legionella pneumophilae (L. pneumophilae) and non-significantly lower for pneumococcal pneumonia. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of (total) adverse events, or those requiring discontinuation of treatment. However, gastrointestinal events were more common in the non-atypical arm (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No benefit of survival or clinical efficacy was shown to empirical atypical coverage in hospitalized patients with CAP. This conclusion relates mostly to the comparison of quinolone monotherapy to non-atypical monotherapy. Further trials, comparing beta-lactam (BL) or cephalosporin therapy to BL or cephalosporin combined with a macrolide in this population, using mortality as its primary outcome, should be performed.