Dataset Information

Psychotic symptoms in older people without dementia from a Brazilian community-based sample: A seven years' follow-up.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Studies of the incidence of psychotic symptoms in elderly people at risk of dementia are scarce. This is a seven year follow up study aiming to determine the incidence of psychotic symptoms and their correlation with other clinical aspects, in particular the rate of development of cognitive impairment.

Methods

Cohort study of a community-based sample of elderly subjects. At study entry in 2004, the sample was composed of 1,125 individuals aged 60 years and older. Of this total, 547 subjects were re-evaluated in 2011 and submitted to the original study protocol. Of these, 199 showed no psychotic symptoms at phase I, while 64 already had psychotic symptoms in 2004.

Results

The incidence of at least one psychotic symptom in the 7 year period was 8.0% (Visual/tactile hallucinations: 4.5%; Persecutory delusions: 3.0%; Auditory hallucinations: 2.5%). Development of psychotic symptoms was associated with epilepsy (OR: 7.75 and 15.83), lower MMSE (OR: 0.72) and reported depression (OR: 6.48). A total of 57.8% of individuals with psychotic symptoms developed cognitive impairment after 7 years. Visual/tactile hallucinations were the only psychotic symptom predictive of this impairment, which was related to lower MMSE and greater functional impairment.

Conclusions

The incidence of psychotic symptoms and the conversion rate to cognitive impairment was in the upper range when compared with previous reports. Visual/tactile hallucinations were the most frequent symptoms and were predictive of cognitive impairment over the 7 year period. A significant relationship was found between the incidence of psychotic symptoms and low MMSE scores, as well as clinical comorbities such as epilepsy, reported depression, diabetes and syphilis.

SUBMITTER: Soares WB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5473532 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Psychotic symptoms in older people without dementia from a Brazilian community-based sample: A seven years' follow-up.

Soares Walter Barbalho WB Dos Santos Eriton Barros EB Bottino Cássio Machado de Campos CMC Elkis Helio H

PloS one 20170616 6

<h4>Background</h4>Studies of the incidence of psychotic symptoms in elderly people at risk of dementia are scarce. This is a seven year follow up study aiming to determine the incidence of psychotic symptoms and their correlation with other clinical aspects, in particular the rate of development of cognitive impairment.<h4>Methods</h4>Cohort study of a community-based sample of elderly subjects. At study entry in 2004, the sample was composed of 1,125 individuals aged 60 years and older. Of thi ...[more]

PMID: 28622335

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether neighbourhood-level socioenvironmental factors including deprivation and inequality predict variance in psychotic symptoms after controlling for individual-level demographics.DesignA cross-sectional design was employed.SettingData were originally collected from secondary care services within the UK boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Wandsworth, Kingston, Richmond, Merton, Sutton and Hounslow as part of the West London First-Episode Psychosis study.ParticipantsComplete case analyses were undertaken on 319 participants who met the following inclusion criteria: aged 16 years or over, resident in the study's catchment area, experiencing a first psychotic episode, with fewer than 12 weeks' exposure to antipsychotic medication and sufficient command of English to facilitate assessment.Outcome measuresSymptom dimension scores, derived from principal component analyses of the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms and Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, were regressed on neighbourhood-level predictors, including population density, income deprivation, income inequality, social fragmentation, social cohesion, ethnic density and ethnic fragmentation, using multilevel regression. While age, gender and socioeconomic status were included as individual-level covariates, data on participant ethnicity were not available.ResultsHigher income inequality was associated with lower negative symptom scores (coefficient=-1.66, 95% CI -2.86 to -0.46, p<0.01) and higher levels of ethnic segregation were associated with lower positive symptom scores (coefficient=-2.32, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.48, p=0.01) after adjustment for covariates.ConclusionsThese findings provide further evidence that particular characteristics of the environment may be linked to specific symptom clusters in psychosis. Longitudinal studies are required to begin to tease apart the underlying mechanisms involved as well as the causal direction of such associations.

Project description:BackgroundDepression is the most prevalent mental health problem. The need for effective treatments for depression far outstrips the availability of trained mental health professionals. Smartphones and other widely available technologies are increasingly being leveraged to deliver treatments for depression. Whether there are patient characteristics that affect the potency of smartphone interventions for depression is not well understood.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate whether patient characteristics including clinical diagnosis, depression severity, psychosis status, and current use of antidepressant medications impact the effects of an evidence-based smartphone intervention on depressive symptoms.MethodsData were collected as part of a 2-arm randomized controlled trial comparing a multimodal smartphone intervention called FOCUS with a clinic-based intervention. Here, we report on 82 participants assigned to 12 weeks of FOCUS treatment. We conducted assessments of depressive symptoms using the Beck Depression Inventory-second edition (BDI-II) at baseline, postintervention (3 months), and follow-up (6 months). We tested for differences in the amount of improvement in BDI-II scores from baseline to posttreatment and 6-month follow-up between each of the following patient subgroups using 2 (group) × 2 (time) mixed effects models: diagnosis (ie, schizophrenia spectrum disorder vs bipolar disorder vs major depressive disorder), depression severity (ie, minimal-mild vs moderate-severe depression), psychosis status (ie, presence vs absence of psychotic symptoms), and antidepressant use (ie, taking antidepressants vs not taking antidepressants).ResultsThe majority of participants were male (60%, 49/82), African American (65%, 53/82), and middle-aged (mean age 49 years), with a high school education or lower (62%, 51/82). There were no differences in patient demographics across the variables that were used to stratify the analyses. There was a significant group × time interaction for baseline depression severity (F1,76.8=5.26, P=.02 [posttreatment] and F1,77.4=6.56, P=.01 [6-month follow-up]). Participants with moderate or severe depression had significant improvements (t42=3.20, P=.003 [posttreatment] and t42=4.20, P<.001 [6-month follow-up]), but participants with minimal or mild depression did not (t31=0.20, P=.84 [posttreatment] and t30=0.43, P=.67 [6-month follow-up]). There were no significant group × time interactions for diagnosis, psychosis status, or antidepressant medication use. Participants with minimal or mild depression had negligible nonsignificant improvements (<1 point on the BDI-II). Reduction in depression in all other groups was larger (range 1.7-6.5 points on the BDI-II).ConclusionsOur results suggest that FOCUS can be deployed to treat moderate to severe depressive symptoms among people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder, in concert with antidepressant medications or without them, in both people with and without active psychotic symptoms. The study results are consistent with research on transdiagnostic models in psychotherapy and extend our knowledge about the potential of transdiagnostic mobile health.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02421965; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02421965 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/76pyDlvAS).

Project description:Psychotic experiences (PEs) are prevalent in the general population, particularly in adolescents. PEs are associated with various negative outcomes such as psychotic, depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders and suicidal behavior. Recent studies in the general population have suggested that what makes PEs relevant is not so much the experiences per se, but their association with non-psychotic comorbidity and other transdiagnostic domains. Thus, there is a need for a better understanding of how PEs exist in a larger psychopathological context in adolescents. In the present study we aimed to explore this, using latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify different patterns in which PEs, psychiatric symptoms and psychological processes co-occur. LPA was conducted using data from an adolescent general population subsample (n = 335) with PEs. We conducted LPA, using measures of PEs, psychiatric symptoms and behaviors (depression, anxiety post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal behavior) and cognitive and affective processes of entrapment/defeat and emotional regulation as manifest variables. We found that the best fit was obtained with a four-class solution that distinguished primarily between different levels of overall severity: “low symptomatology” (19.1%), “mild-moderate symptomatology” (39.4%), “moderate symptomatology” (33.7%); “high symptomatology” (7.8%). Levels of depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms and defeat/entrapment were most differentiated between classes. The high symptomatology group showed the highest scores in all psychiatric symptoms suicidal ideation, and emotional/cognitive domains, except in cognitive reappraisal. This group also showed the highest usage of emotional suppression. Our results suggest that the assessment of mental health risk in adolescents should be aware that PEs exist in a broad context of other domains of psychopathology and transdiagnostic cognitive and affective processes.

Project description:ImportanceSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is readily transmitted person to person. Optimal control of COVID-19 depends on directing resources and health messaging to mitigation efforts that are most likely to prevent transmission, but the relative importance of such measures has been disputed.ObjectiveTo assess the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions in the community that likely occur from persons without symptoms.Design, setting, and participantsThis decision analytical model assessed the relative amount of transmission from presymptomatic, never symptomatic, and symptomatic individuals across a range of scenarios in which the proportion of transmission from people who never develop symptoms (ie, remain asymptomatic) and the infectious period were varied according to published best estimates. For all estimates, data from a meta-analysis was used to set the incubation period at a median of 5 days. The infectious period duration was maintained at 10 days, and peak infectiousness was varied between 3 and 7 days (-2 and +2 days relative to the median incubation period). The overall proportion of SARS-CoV-2 was varied between 0% and 70% to assess a wide range of possible proportions.Main outcomes and measuresLevel of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from presymptomatic, never symptomatic, and symptomatic individuals.ResultsThe baseline assumptions for the model were that peak infectiousness occurred at the median of symptom onset and that 30% of individuals with infection never develop symptoms and are 75% as infectious as those who do develop symptoms. Combined, these baseline assumptions imply that persons with infection who never develop symptoms may account for approximately 24% of all transmission. In this base case, 59% of all transmission came from asymptomatic transmission, comprising 35% from presymptomatic individuals and 24% from individuals who never develop symptoms. Under a broad range of values for each of these assumptions, at least 50% of new SARS-CoV-2 infections was estimated to have originated from exposure to individuals with infection but without symptoms.Conclusions and relevanceIn this decision analytical model of multiple scenarios of proportions of asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19 and infectious periods, transmission from asymptomatic individuals was estimated to account for more than half of all transmissions. In addition to identification and isolation of persons with symptomatic COVID-19, effective control of spread will require reducing the risk of transmission from people with infection who do not have symptoms. These findings suggest that measures such as wearing masks, hand hygiene, social distancing, and strategic testing of people who are not ill will be foundational to slowing the spread of COVID-19 until safe and effective vaccines are available and widely used.

Dataset Information

Psychotic symptoms in older people without dementia from a Brazilian community-based sample: A seven years' follow-up.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Psychotic symptoms in older people without dementia from a Brazilian community-based sample: A seven years' follow-up.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets