Dataset Information

Evidence for inhibited temperament as a transdiagnostic factor across mood and psychotic disorders.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The conceptualization of risk for psychiatric illness is moving from risk factors for specific psychiatric disorders to factors that confer risk for multiple disorders. One potential transdiagnostic risk factor is inhibited temperament, a trait characterized by a fearful or avoidant response to novelty. Inhibited temperament is an established risk factor for anxiety disorders, and evidence suggests inhibited temperament is elevated in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder.

Methods

In the current study, we tested the hypothesis that inhibited temperament is a transdiagnostic factor in 490 participants including individuals with schizophrenia (n=184), psychotic bipolar disorder (n=61), major depression disorder (n=53), or no disorders (n=192). Participants completed assessments of temperament, personality, clinical symptoms, cognition, and functioning. An ANOVA was used to test for group differences in inhibited temperament scores. Regressions were used to test whether inhibited temperament scores were associated with the current measures and whether the associations were similar across disorders.

Results

Inhibited temperament was similarly elevated in all patient groups compared to controls. Inhibited temperament was similarly associated with anxiety, depression, negative affect, and quality of life across patient groups. Inhibited temperament was not associated with cognition or functional impairment.

Limitation

Although the inhibited temperament measure is commonly used, it is a retrospective self-report which may be susceptible to biases.

Conclusions

The current study provides evidence that inhibited temperament is a transdiagnostic factor impacting affective systems across mood and psychotic disorders. Inhibited patients may especially benefit from treatments that specifically target anxiety and depression.

SUBMITTER: Feola B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7540608 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundResearch increasingly supports a transdiagnostic conceptualization of emotional disorders (ie applying the same underlying treatment principles across mental disorders, without tailoring the protocol to specific diagnoses), and many international researchers are currently investigating this issue.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of a Web-based transdiagnostic program using a sample of Romanian adults diagnosed with anxiety and/or depression.MethodsVolunteer participants registered for the study and completed a series of online self-report measures. Participants who fulfilled basic inclusion criteria on these measures were contacted for a telephone diagnostic interview using the Structural Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition Axis I Disorders (SCID-I). Enrolled participants were randomized to either the active treatment group (N=69) or the wait-list control group (N=36) using a 2:1 ratio. The transdiagnostic treatment was based on the Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders (UP; Barlow et al, 2011) that addresses common underlying mechanisms of anxiety and depression. Participants randomized to the active treatment condition received 10 weeks of Web-based treatment based on the UP. Throughout treatment, graduate students in clinical psychology provided guidance that consisted of asynchronous written communication on a secure Web platform. After the intervention, participants in both study conditions were invited to complete a set of self-report measures and a postintervention SCID-I interview conducted by a different team of graduate students blinded to participants' group and diagnostic status. Six months later, participants in the active treatment group were invited to complete an online follow-up assessment.ResultsDuring the intervention, active treatment participants completed on average 19 homework assignments (SD 12.10), and we collected data from 79.0% (83/105) at postintervention and 51% (35/69) at follow-up for self-report measures. Postintervention SCID-I interviews were collected from 77.1% (81/105) participants. Relative to the wait-list control group, the transdiagnostic intervention yielded overall medium to large effect sizes for the primary outcome measures (within-group Hedges g=0.52-1.34 and between-group g=0.39-0.86), and also for anxiety sensitivity (g=0.80), symptom interference (g=0.48), and quality of life (g=0.38). Significant within-groups effects only were reported for the active treatment group on Panic Disorder Severity Scale-Self Report (PDSS-SR, g=0.58-0.65) and Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS, g=0.52-0.58).ConclusionsInsignificant between-group differences for the Y-BOCS and PDSS-SR could be explained by the small number of participants with the associated primary diagnostic (eg, only 3 participants with obsessive compulsive disorder) by the choice of outcome measure (PDSS-SR was not rated among the evidence-based measures) and by the fact that these disorders may be more difficult to treat. However, the overall results suggest that the transdiagnostic intervention tested in this study represents an effective treatment option that may prove easier to disseminate through the use of Web-based delivery systems.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov CT02739607; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02739607 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yY1VeYIZ).

Project description:Anhedonia is central to multiple psychiatric disorders and causes substantial disability. A dimensional conceptualization posits that anhedonia severity is related to a transdiagnostic continuum of reward deficits in specific neural networks. Previous functional connectivity studies related to anhedonia have focused on case-control comparisons in specific disorders, using region-specific seed-based analyses. Here, the authors explore the entire functional connectome in relation to reward responsivity across a population of adults with heterogeneous psychopathology.In a sample of 225 adults from five diagnostic groups (major depressive disorder, N=32; bipolar disorder, N=50; schizophrenia, N=51; psychosis risk, N=39; and healthy control subjects, N=53), the authors conducted a connectome-wide analysis examining the relationship between a dimensional measure of reward responsivity (the reward sensitivity subscale of the Behavioral Activation Scale) and resting-state functional connectivity using multivariate distance-based matrix regression.The authors identified foci of dysconnectivity associated with reward responsivity in the nucleus accumbens, the default mode network, and the cingulo-opercular network. Follow-up analyses revealed dysconnectivity among specific large-scale functional networks and their connectivity with the nucleus accumbens. Reward deficits were associated with decreased connectivity between the nucleus accumbens and the default mode network and increased connectivity between the nucleus accumbens and the cingulo-opercular network. In addition, impaired reward responsivity was associated with default mode network hyperconnectivity and diminished connectivity between the default mode network and the cingulo-opercular network.These results emphasize the centrality of the nucleus accumbens in the pathophysiology of reward deficits and suggest that dissociable patterns of connectivity among large-scale networks are critical to the neurobiology of reward dysfunction across clinical diagnostic categories.

Project description:Importance:The symptoms that define mood, anxiety, and trauma disorders are highly overlapping across disorders and heterogeneous within disorders. It is unknown whether coherent subtypes exist that span multiple diagnoses and are expressed functionally (in underlying cognition and brain function) and clinically (in daily function). The identification of cohesive subtypes would help disentangle the symptom overlap in our current diagnoses and serve as a tool for tailoring treatment choices. Objective:To propose and demonstrate 1 approach for identifying subtypes within a transdiagnostic sample. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study analyzed data from the Brain Research and Integrative Neuroscience Network Foundation Database that had been collected at the University of Sydney and University of Adelaide between 2006 and 2010 and replicated at Stanford University between 2013 and 2017. The study included 420 individuals with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder (n?=?100), panic disorder (n?=?53), posttraumatic stress disorder (n?=?47), or no disorder (healthy control participants) (n?=?220). Data were analyzed between October 2016 and October 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:We followed a data-driven approach to achieve the primary study outcome of identifying transdiagnostic subtypes. First, machine learning with a hierarchical clustering algorithm was implemented to classify participants based on self-reported negative mood, anxiety, and stress symptoms. Second, the robustness and generalizability of the subtypes were tested in an independent sample. Third, we assessed whether symptom subtypes were expressed at behavioral and physiological levels of functioning. Fourth, we evaluated the clinically meaningful differences in functional capacity of the subtypes. Findings were interpreted relative to a complementary diagnostic frame of reference. Results:Four hundred twenty participants with a mean (SD) age of 39.8 (14.1) years were included in the final analysis; 256 (61.0%) were female. We identified 6 distinct subtypes characterized by tension (n=81; 19%), anxious arousal (n=55; 13%), general anxiety (n=38; 9%), anhedonia (n=29; 7%), melancholia (n=37; 9%), and normative mood (n=180; 43%), and these subtypes were replicated in an independent sample. Subtypes were expressed through differences in cognitive control (F5,383?=?5.13, P?<?.001, ?p2?=?0.063), working memory (F5,401?=?3.29, P?=?.006, ?p2?=?0.039), electroencephalography-recorded ? power in a resting paradigm (F5,357?=?3.84, P?=?.002, ?p2?=?0.051), electroencephalography-recorded ? power in an emotional paradigm (F5,365?=?3.56, P?=?.004, ?p2?=?0.047), social functional capacity (F5,414?=?21.33, P?<?.001, ?p2?=?0.205), and emotional resilience (F5,376?=?15.10, P?<?.001, ?p2?=?0.171). Conclusions and Relevance:These findings offer a data-driven framework for identifying robust subtypes that signify specific, coherent, meaningful associations between symptoms, behavior, brain function, and observable real-world function, and that cut across DSM-IV-defined diagnoses of major depressive disorder, panic disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder.