Symptomatic remission in psychosis and real-life functioning.

Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616 (VIJV), 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. .
The British journal of psychiatry: the journal of mental science (Impact Factor: 7.34). 06/2012; 201:215-20. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.104414
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In 2005 Andreasen proposed criteria for remission in schizophrenia. It is unclear whether these criteria reflect symptom reduction and improved social functioning in daily life.
To investigate whether criteria for symptomatic remission reflect symptom reduction and improved functioning in real life, comparing patients meeting remission criteria, patients not meeting these criteria and healthy controls.
The Experience Sampling Method (ESM), a structured diary technique, was used to explore real-life symptoms and functioning in 177 patients with (remitted and non-remitted) schizophrenia spectrum disorders and 148 controls.
Of 177 patients, 70 met criteria for symptomatic remission. These patients reported significantly fewer positive and negative symptoms and better mood states compared with patients not in remission. Furthermore, patients in remission spent more time in goal-directed activities and had less preference for being alone when they were with others. However, the patient groups did not differ on time spent in social company and doing nothing, and both the remission and non-remission groups had lower scores on functional outcome measures compared with the control group.
The study provides an ecological validation for the symptomatic remission criteria, showing that patients who met the criteria reported fewer positive symptoms, better mood states and partial recovery of reward experience compared with those not in remission. However, remission status was not related to functional recovery, suggesting that the current focus on symptomatic remission may reflect an overly restricted goal.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aims to compare severity criteria defined by the Remission in Schizophrenia Working Group (RSWGcr) with other criteria in relation to functional and neurocognitive outcome. 112 chronic psychotic outpatients were examined. Symptomatic remission according to RSWGcr was compared with the outcome achieved using criteria based on PANSS Positive and Negative Scales (PANSS-PNScr) and the entire PANSS (PANNS-TScr). Remission rates were 50%, 35% and 23% respectively at RSWGcr, PANSS-PNScr and PANNS-TScr; functional remission rates were 32%, 42% and 54%. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive value and ROC analysis demonstrated the superiority of PANSS-PNScr in identifying patients with higher functional and cognitive outcomes. Regression analysis showed a significant predictive effect of PANSS-TScr on functioning. General linear model analyses demonstrated significantly higher mean scores at PSP and BACS for patients remitted according to PANSS-TScr. The use of more restrictive severity criteria of remission seems to be associated with improved identification of truly remitted patients.
    BMC Psychiatry 09/2013; 13:1-10. DOI:10.1186/1471-244X-13-235 · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Empirically validated psychosocial therapies for individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia were described in the report of the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT, 2009). The PORT team identified eight psychosocial treatments: assertive community treatment, supported employment, cognitive behavioral therapy, family-based services, token economy, skills training, psychosocial interventions for alcohol and substance use disorders, and psychosocial interventions for weight management. PORT listings of empirically validated psychosocial therapies provide a useful template for the design of effective recovery-oriented mental health care systems. Unfortunately, surveys indicate that PORT listings have not been implemented in clinical settings. Obstacles to the implementation of PORT psychosocial therapy listings and suggestions for changes needed to foster implementation are discussed. Limitations of PORT therapy listings that are based on therapy outcome efficacy studies are discussed, and cross-cultural and course and outcome studies of correlates of recovery are summarized.
    04/2013; 2013:792769. DOI:10.1155/2013/792769
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With the introduction of a clear definition of symptomatic remission from the Remission in Schizophrenia Working Group (RSWG), studies have sought to characterize cognitive functioning in remitted and non-remitted schizophrenia patients. However, most investigations of cognition and remission are cross-sectional or have studied samples of chronically ill patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare cognitive performance between remitted and non-remitted first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients longitudinally. Seventy patients were categorized as remitted (n = 17) or non-remitted (n = 53) using the full RSWG criteria after being treated for approximately 15 months, during which cognition was evaluated twice. Since our previous investigations in FEP have isolated verbal memory as a potential cognitive marker of symptomatic remission, analyses were limited to verbal, visual and working memory. We have found that non-remitted patients had a significantly worse verbal memory performance than remitted patients after 3 months (F(1,68) = 6.47, p = 0.006) and 15 months of treatment (F(1,68) = 19.49, p < 0.001). Visual memory was also significantly lower in non-remitted patients compared to those in remission but only at initial assessment (F(1,68) = 8.21, p = 0.003) while working memory performance was similar at both time points. Our findings suggest that verbal memory may be a specific and stable marker of clinical remission in FEP patients. This cognitive domain can easily be evaluated at treatment intake in the hope of identifying early on patients who are less likely to remit.
    Schizophrenia Research 03/2014; 153(1-3). DOI:10.1016/j.schres.2014.01.024 · 4.43 Impact Factor