Neurocognitive disorders: cluster 1 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11

Gut microbiota in combination with blood metabolites reveals characteristics of the disease cluster of coronary artery disease and cognitive impairment: a Mendelian randomization study

Background

The coexistence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and cognitive impairment has become a common clinical phenomenon. However, there is currently limited research on the etiology of this disease cluster, discovery of biomarkers, and identification of precise intervention targets.

Methods

We explored the causal connections between gut microbiota, blood metabolites, and the disease cluster of CAD combined with cognitive impairment through two-sample Mendelian randomization (TSMR). Additionally, we determine the gut microbiota and blood metabolites with the strongest causal associations using Bayesian model averaging multivariate Mendelian randomization (MR-BMA) analysis. Furthermore, we will investigate the mediating role of blood metabolites through a two-step Mendelian randomization design.

Results

We identified gut microbiota that had significant causal associations with cognitive impairment. Additionally, we also discovered blood metabolites that exhibited significant causal associations with both CAD and cognitive impairment. According to the MR-BMA results, the free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in large very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) was identified as the key blood metabolite significantly associated with CAD. Similarly, the cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in small VLDL emerged as the primary blood metabolite with a significant causal association with dementia with lewy bodies (DLB). For the two-step Mendelian randomization analysis, we identified blood metabolites that could potentially mediate the association between genus Butyricicoccus and CAD in the potential causal links.

Conclusion

Our study utilized Mendelian randomization (MR) to identify the gut microbiota features and blood metabolites characteristics associated with the disease cluster of CAD combined with cognitive impairment. These findings will provide a meaningful reference for the identification of biomarkers for the disease cluster of CAD combined with cognitive impairment as well as the discovery of targets for intervention to address the problems in the clinic.

[Cognitive impairment and social functioning in organic personality disorder due to epilepsy]

OBJECTIVE

To develop criteria for the diagnosis of cognitive impairment (CI) and to determine the degree of social functioning in organic personality disorder due to epilepsy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty-six patients with epilepsy, aged 18 to 65 years, with disease duration of 11 to 20 years, were examined. The main research method is clinical-psychopathological. The Mini-mental state examination (MMSE) was administered to assess the severity of CI. The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale was used to assess social functioning.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The structure of organic personality disorder due to epilepsy is determined by a combination of CI and personality changes with a predominance of explosive (short temper, irritability, brutality, explosiveness) or defensive (passivity, suggestibility, vulnerability, suspiciousness, sensitivity, subordination) traits. CI includes impaired thinking, attention, and memory and is manifested by inertia, stiffness, toughness, rigidity, slowing down the pace of thought processes, as well as difficulty in concentrating, impaired direct and indirect memory. Three groups of patients with mild, moderate and severe CI are isolated. In the group with mild CI, thorough thinking with a slow pace and a decrease in the ability to learn new things, which was com. When assessing impairment of social functioning fa moderate and severe of maladaptation with impairments in all areas of activity is revealed in people with explosive personality characteristics and a mild degree - in people with defensive features. It has been shown that the analysis of cognitive impairment is critical in the diagnosis of organic personality disorder due to epilepsy.

The Use of ICD-10 for Diagnosing Mental Disorders In Russia, According to National Statistics and a Survey of Psychiatrists' Experience

Purpose and methods. In order to assess the specifics of practical use of the ICD-10 Diagnostic Guidelines by Russian psychiatrists, official national statistics on the prevalence of a number of mental disorders in Russia in 2019 were compared with the results of meta-analyses of international epidemiological studies of these disorders. In addition, a number of items in the online psychiatrists' survey, relating to the diagnosis of schizophrenia, were analysed; 807 Russian psychiatrists took part in the online survey. Results. Analysis of national statistics showed that domestic clinicians diagnose some mental disorders significantly less often than might be expected, according to data obtained by international epidemiological studies. The number of cases of bipolar affective disorder registered in Russia is 90150 times less than that for the prevalence of this disorder, according to meta-analyses of epidemiological studies; for depression, the result is 5070 times; for anxiety disorders, the number is 2550 times, and for autism, it is 30 times. Instead of the above disorders, diagnoses of organic non-psychotic mental disorders and schizophrenia might have been used unreasonably often. Between 2005 and 2019, diagnosis of childhood autism changed significantly (an increase of more than 100%), while the frequency of diagnosing other mental disorders remained unchanged. The results of the online survey also showed largely perfunctory use of the ICD-10 Diagnostic Guidelines, with a third of respondents reporting never checking the diagnostic schedules, and another third doing so from time to time. In addition, the low estimates given by survey participants regarding practical utility of the ICD-10 Diagnostic Guidelines, along with a large percentage of respondents who do not directly use diagnostic criteria in their work, indicate the need to improve the clinical usefulness of the diagnostic guidelines in the latest revision of the ICD, including convenience of use in practice. Conclusion. The results of analysis of the Russian national mental health service statistic indicate that at least some diagnostic categories are not used by Russian psychiatrists exactly as ICD-10 suggests. The revealed discrepancy between the principles of diagnostics observed by domestic clinicians and international criteria may interfere with the use of evidence-based treatment algorithms, negatively affecting the quality of psychiatric care. In light of the upcoming transition to ICD-11 and in order to unify approaches to the diagnosis of mental disorders in our country, it is necessary to update and improve educational programmes for psychiatrists.

Cognitive Go/No-Go decision-making criteria in Alzheimer's disease drug development

Go/No-Go decision making in early phase clinical trials is challenging for drug developers working in Alzheimer's disease. Recent negative trial results have been attributed to a lack of efficacy and important safety concerns. Furthermore, demonstrated target engagement has rarely translated into demonstrable clinical efficacy. Cognitive data might provide valuable insights at various points during drug development, and a thoughtful and robust set of decision-making criteria, specified a priori, can and should be applied under many circumstances. This review provides insights into how to utilize cognitive data for Go/No-Go decisions, with an emphasis on how these cognitive criteria differ depending on the context (e.g., stage of development, mechanism of action and trial design).

The classification of mental disorder: a simpler system for DSM–V and ICD–11

This article proposes a simplification to the chapter structure of current classifications of mental disorder, which cause unnecessary estimates of ‘comorbidity’ and pay major attention to symptom similarity as a criterion for deciding on groupings. A simpler system, taking account of recent developments in aetiology, is proposed. There is at present no simple solution to the problems posed by the structure of our classification, but the advantages as well as the shortcomings of changing our approach to diagnosis are discussed.

Evaluation of a research diagnostic algorithm for DSM-5 neurocognitive disorders in a population-based cohort of older adults

BACKGROUND

There is little information on the application and impact of revised criteria for diagnosing dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), now termed major and mild neurocognitive disorders (NCDs) in the DSM-5. We evaluate a psychometric algorithm for diagnosing DSM-5 NCDs in a community-dwelling sample, and characterize the neuropsychological and functional profile of expert-diagnosed DSM-5 NCDs relative to DSM-IV dementia and International Working Group criteria for MCI.

METHODS

A population-based sample of 1644 adults aged 72-78 years was assessed. Algorithmic diagnostic criteria used detailed neuropsychological data, medical history, longitudinal cognitive performance, and informant interview. Those meeting all criteria for at least one diagnosis had data reviewed by a neurologist (expert diagnosis) who achieved consensus with a psychiatrist for complex cases.

RESULTS

The algorithm accurately classified DSM-5 major NCD (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-0.97), DSM-IV dementia (AUC = 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97), DSM-5 mild NCD (AUC = 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.80), and MCI (AUC = 0.76, 95% CI 0.72-0.81) when compared to expert diagnosis. Expert diagnosis of dementia using DSM-5 criteria overlapped with 90% of DSM-IV dementia cases, but resulted in a 127% increase in diagnosis relative to DSM-IV. Additional cases had less severe memory, language impairment, and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) impairments compared to cases meeting DSM-IV criteria for dementia. DSM-5 mild NCD overlapped with 83% of MCI cases and resulted in a 19% increase in diagnosis. These additional cases had a subtly different neurocognitive profile to MCI cases, including poorer social cognition.

CONCLUSION

DSM-5 NCD criteria can be operationalized in a psychometric algorithm in a population setting. Expert diagnosis using DSM-5 NCD criteria captured most cases with DSM-IV dementia and MCI in our sample, but included many additional cases suggesting that DSM-5 criteria are broader in their categorization.

Management of delirium in palliative care: a review

Delirium is a complex but common disorder in palliative care with a prevalence between 13 and 88 % but a particular frequency at the end of life (terminal delirium). By reviewing the most relevant studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycLit, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library), a correct assessment to make the diagnosis (e.g., DSM-5, delirium assessment tools), the identification of the possible etiological factors, and the application of multicomponent and integrated interventions were reported as the correct steps to effectively manage delirium in palliative care. In terms of medications, both conventional (e.g., haloperidol) and atypical antipsychotics (e.g., olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole) were shown to be equally effective in the treatment of delirium. No recommendation was possible in palliative care regarding the use of other drugs (e.g., α-2 receptors agonists, psychostimulants, cholinesterase inhibitors, melatonergic drugs). Non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., behavioral and educational) were also shown to be important in the management of delirium. More research is necessary to clarify how to more thoroughly manage delirium in palliative care.

DSM-5 and Mental Disorders in Older Individuals: An Overview

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After participating in this activity, learners should be better able to:• Assess the changes in DSM-5 relative to earlier versions.• Evaluate the implications of the DSM-5 for practicing geriatric psychiatrists.

ABSTRACT

About every 20 years, the American Psychiatric Association revises its official classification of mental disorders. The fifth revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was published in 2013, prompting considerable commentary, debate, and criticism. This article briefly describes the process leading up to DSM-5 and the main changes from the previous version (DSM-IV) that would be of interest to a geriatric psychiatrist. The changes in the areas of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depressive disorders, and anxiety disorders have been many, but the majority of them are minor and unlikely to have major treatment implications. The classification of neurocognitive disorders, however, has seen a major revision and elaboration in comparison to DSM-IV; of special note is the introduction of "mild and major neurocognitive disorders," the latter equated with dementia. A common language has also been introduced for the criteria for the various etiological subtypes of neurocognitive disorders. All physicians treating patients with neurocognitive disorders should familiarize themselves with these criteria. Their use in research has the potential to harmonize the field.

Classifying neurocognitive disorders: the DSM-5 approach

Neurocognitive disorders--including delirium, mild cognitive impairment and dementia--are characterized by decline from a previously attained level of cognitive functioning. These disorders have diverse clinical characteristics and aetiologies, with Alzheimer disease, cerebrovascular disease, Lewy body disease, frontotemporal degeneration, traumatic brain injury, infections, and alcohol abuse representing common causes. This diversity is reflected by the variety of approaches to classifying these disorders, with separate groups determining criteria for each disorder on the basis of aetiology. As a result, there is now an array of terms to describe cognitive syndromes, various definitions for the same syndrome, and often multiple criteria to determine a specific aetiology. The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) provides a common framework for the diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders, first by describing the main cognitive syndromes, and then defining criteria to delineate specific aetiological subtypes of mild and major neurocognitive disorders. The DSM-5 approach builds on the expectation that clinicians and research groups will welcome a common language to deal with the neurocognitive disorders. As the use of these criteria becomes more widespread, a common international classification for these disorders could emerge for the first time, thus promoting efficient communication among clinicians and researchers.

Psychiatric comorbidity and causal disease models

In psychiatry, comorbidity is the rule rather than the exception. Up to 45% of all patients are classified as having more than one psychiatric disorder. These high rates of comorbidity have led to a debate concerning the interpretation of this phenomenon. Some authors emphasize the problematic character of the high rates of comorbidity because they indicate absent zones of rarities. Others consider comorbid conditions to be a validator for a particular reclassification of diseases. In this paper we will show that those at first sight contrasting interpretations of comorbidity are based on similar assumptions about disease models. The underlying ideas are that firstly high rates of comorbidity are the result of the absence of causally defined diseases in psychiatry, and second that causal disease models are preferable to non-causal disease models. We will argue that there are good reasons to seek after causal understanding of psychiatric disorders, but that causal disease models will not rule out high rates of comorbidity--neither in psychiatry, nor in medicine in general. By bringing to the fore these underlying assumptions, we hope to clear the ground for a different understanding of comorbidity, and of models for psychiatric diseases.

The DSM-5: Classification and criteria changes

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) marks the first significant revision of the publication since the DSM-IV in 1994. Changes to the DSM were largely informed by advancements in neuroscience, clinical and public health need, and identified problems with the classification system and criteria put forth in the DSM-IV. Much of the decision-making was also driven by a desire to ensure better alignment with the International Classification of Diseases and its upcoming 11th edition (ICD-11). In this paper, we describe select revisions in the DSM-5, with an emphasis on changes projected to have the greatest clinical impact and those that demonstrate efforts to enhance international compatibility, including integration of cultural context with diagnostic criteria and changes that facilitate DSM-ICD harmonization. It is anticipated that this collaborative spirit between the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) will continue as the DSM-5 is updated further, bringing the field of psychiatry even closer to a singular, cohesive nosology.

Neurocognitive diagnostic challenges and the DSM-5: perspectives from the front lines of clinical practice

The proposed changes to the DSM-IV-TR are an attempt to advance a common language to be used by clinicians and researchers in psychiatry in the United States. Any improvement brought about by these changes may be jeopardized unless the ICD-10, which is used by non-psychiatric clinicians and researchers worldwide, and the DSM resolve the differences in the definitions and diagnostic criteria of most disorders. Unless there is congruence between the two manuals, debate is therefore likely to continue in the literature as to which provider is best suited to direct the care for the person with dementia: primary care providers, psychiatric providers, or neurologists. The changes to the DSM-IV-TR have the potential to promote preventive measures and early diagnosis, provided that the stigma associated with mental illnesses can be mitigated. A common language among psychiatric and primary care APRNs, other clinicians, and researchers will enhance effective communication and improve dementia care.

The predictive validity of the 10/66 dementia diagnosis in Chennai, India: a 3-year follow-up study of cases identified at baseline

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of dementia according to DSM-IV criteria tends to be very low in less developed settings. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group's cross-culturally validated diagnosis returns a considerably higher prevalence. Assessing the predictive validity of the 10/66 dementia diagnosis will assist in establishing the best criterion for estimating the population burden of dementia.

METHODS

In a population-based study in Chennai, India, we aimed to follow-up after 3 years 75 people with 10/66 dementia and 193 with cognitive impairment but no dementia (CIND), reassessing diagnostic status, clinical severity, cognitive function, disability, and needs for care.

RESULTS

We traced 54 people with dementia of whom 25 (46.3%) had died, double the mortality rate among those with CIND. Twenty-two of the 24 people with 10/66 dementia that were reexamined still met 10/66 dementia criteria. There was clear evidence of clinical progression and increased needs for care. Only one "case" had unambiguously improved. Cognitive function had deteriorated and disability increased to a much greater extent than among those with CIND.

CONCLUSION

The strong predictive validity of the 10/66 dementia diagnosis is consistent with a lack of sensitivity of the DSM-IV criteria to mild-to-moderate cases, which may underestimate prevalence in less developed regions.

Patterns of comorbidity among mental disorders: a person-centered approach

OBJECTIVE

Comorbidity poses a major challenge to conventional methods of diagnostic classification. Although dimensional models of psychopathology have shed some light on this issue, the reason for interrelationships among dimensions is unclear. The current study employed an alternative approach to characterizing patterns of comorbidity among common mental disorders by modeling them instead as clusters by using latent class analysis (LCA).

METHOD

Latent class analyses of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders diagnoses from two nationally representative epidemiological samples--the National Comorbidity Survey and National Comorbidity Survey--Replication datasets--were undertaken.

RESULTS

Within each dataset, LCA yielded 5 latent classes exhibiting distinctive profiles of diagnostic comorbidity: a fear class (all phobias and panic disorder), a distress class (depression, generalized anxiety disorder, dysthymia), an externalizing class (alcohol and drug dependence, conduct disorder), a multimorbid class (highly elevated rates of all disorders), and a few-disorders class (very low probability of all disorders). Whereas some disorders were relatively specific to certain classes, others (major depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, social phobia) appeared to be evident across all classes. Profiles for the five classes were highly similar across the two samples. When bipolar I disorder was added to the LCA models, in both samples, it occurred almost exclusively in the multimorbid class.

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbidity among mental disorders in the general population appears to occur in a finite number of distinct patterns. This finding has important implications for efforts to refine existing diagnostic classification schemes, as well as for research directed at elucidating the etiology of mental disorders.

Should our major classifications of mental disorders be revised?

Our major classification systems (DSM and ICD) face three main problems: the high rates of 'comorbidity' that are produced by our present diagnostic rules, the increasing use of 'not elsewhere classified' (NEC) by practising clinicians, and the fact that each new edition is longer and more complex than the one preceding it. A major simplification of the chapter structure used by each classification might pave the way to address these problems.

Emotional disorders: cluster 4 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11

BACKGROUND

The extant major psychiatric classifications DSM-IV, and ICD-10, are atheoretical and largely descriptive. Although this achieves good reliability, the validity of a medical diagnosis would be greatly enhanced by an understanding of risk factors and clinical manifestations. In an effort to group mental disorders on the basis of aetiology, five clusters have been proposed. This paper considers the validity of the fourth cluster, emotional disorders, within that proposal.

METHOD

We reviewed the literature in relation to 11 validating criteria proposed by a Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force, as applied to the cluster of emotional disorders.

RESULTS

An emotional cluster of disorders identified using the 11 validators is feasible. Negative affectivity is the defining feature of the emotional cluster. Although there are differences between disorders in the remaining validating criteria, there are similarities that support the feasibility of an emotional cluster. Strong intra-cluster co-morbidity may reflect the action of common risk factors and also shared higher-order symptom dimensions in these emotional disorders.

CONCLUSION

Emotional disorders meet many of the salient criteria proposed by the Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force to suggest a classification cluster.

Where should bipolar disorder appear in the meta-structure?

BACKGROUND

The extant major psychiatric classifications, DSM-IV and ICD-10, are purportedly atheoretical and largely descriptive. Although this achieves good reliability, the validity of a medical diagnosis is greatly enhanced by an understanding of both risk factors and clinical history. In an effort to group mental disorders on the basis of risk factors and clinical manifestations, five clusters have been proposed. The purpose of this paper is to consider the position of bipolar disorder (BPD), which could be either with the psychoses, or with emotional disorders, or in a separate cluster.

METHOD

We reviewed the literature on BPD, unipolar depression (UPD) and schizophrenia in relation to 11 validating criteria proposed by the DSM-V Task Force Study Group, and then summarized similarities and differences between BPD and schizophrenia on the one hand, and UPD on the other.

RESULTS

There are differences, often substantial and never trivial, for 10 of the 11 validators between BPD and UPD. There are also important differences between BPD and schizophrenia.

CONCLUSION

BPD has previously been classified together with UPD, but this is the least justifiable place for it. If it is to be recruited to a 'psychotic cluster', there are several important respects in which it differs from schizophrenia, so the cluster would have a division within it. The alternative would be to allow it to be in an intermediate position in a cluster of its own.

The psychoses: cluster 3 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11

BACKGROUND

In an effort to group mental disorders on the basis of etiology, five clusters have been proposed. Here we consider the validity of the cluster comprising selected psychotic and related disorders.

METHOD

A group of diagnostic entities classified under schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders in DSM-IV-TR were assigned to this cluster and the bordering disorders, bipolar (BD) and schizotypal personality disorders (SPD), were included. We then reviewed the literature in relation to 11 validating criteria proposed by the DSM-V Task Force Study Group.

RESULTS

Relevant comparisons on the 11 spectrum criteria are rare for the included disorders except for schizophrenia and the two border conditions, BD and SPD. The core psychosis group is congruent at the level of shared psychotic psychopathology and response to antipsychotic medication. BD and SPD are exceptions in that psychosis is not typical in BD-II disorder and frank psychosis is excluded in SPD. There is modest similarity between schizophrenia and BD relating to risk factors, neural substrates, cognition and endophenotypes, but key differences are noted. There is greater support for a spectrum relationship of SPD and schizophrenia. Antecedent temperament, an important validator for other groupings, has received little empirical study in the various psychotic disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

The DSM-IV-TR grouping of psychotic disorders is supported by tradition and shared psychopathology, but few data exist across these diagnoses relating to the 11 spectrum criteria. The case for including BD is modest, and the relationship of BD to other mood disorders is addressed elsewhere. Evidence is stronger for inclusion of SPD, but the relationship with other personality disorders along the 11 criteria is not addressed and the absence of psychosis presents a conceptual problem. There are no data along the 11 spectrum criteria that are decisive for a cluster based on etiology, and inclusion of BD and SPD is questionable.

Neurodevelopmental disorders: cluster 2 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11

BACKGROUND

DSM-IV and ICD-10 are atheoretical and largely descriptive. Although this achieves good reliability, the validity of diagnoses can be increased by an understanding of risk factors and other clinical features. In an effort to group mental disorders on this basis, five clusters have been proposed. We now consider the second cluster, namely neurodevelopmental disorders.

METHOD

We reviewed the literature in relation to 11 validating criteria proposed by a DSM-V Task Force Study Group.

RESULTS

This cluster reflects disorders of neurodevelopment rather than a 'childhood' disorders cluster. It comprises disorders subcategorized in DSM-IV and ICD-10 as Mental Retardation; Learning, Motor, and Communication Disorders; and Pervasive Developmental Disorders. Although these disorders seem to be heterogeneous, they share similarities on some risk and clinical factors. There is evidence of a neurodevelopmental genetic phenotype, the disorders have an early emerging and continuing course, and all have salient cognitive symptoms. Within-cluster co-morbidity also supports grouping these disorders together. Other childhood disorders currently listed in DSM-IV share similarities with the Externalizing and Emotional clusters. These include Conduct Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Separation Anxiety Disorder. The Tic, Eating/Feeding and Elimination disorders, and Selective Mutisms were allocated to the 'Not Yet Assigned' group.

CONCLUSION

Neurodevelopmental disorders meet some of the salient criteria proposed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to suggest a classification cluster.