World Psychiatry

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components are highly predictive of cardiovascular diseases. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to assess the prevalence of MetS and its components in people with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, comparing subjects with different disorders and taking into account demographic variables and psychotropic medication use. The secondary aim was to compare the MetS prevalence in persons with any of the selected disorders versus matched general population controls. The pooled MetS prevalence in people with severe mental illness was 32.6% (95% CI: 30.8%‐34.4%; N = 198; n = 52,678). Relative risk meta‐analyses established that there was no significant difference in MetS prevalence in studies directly comparing schizophrenia versus bipolar disorder, and in those directly comparing bipolar disorder versus major depressive disorder. Only two studies directly compared people with schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, precluding meta‐analytic calculations. Older age and a higher body mass index were significant moderators in the final demographic regression model (z = −3.6, p = 0.0003, r² = 0.19). People treated with all individual antipsychotic medications had a significantly (p<0.001) higher MetS risk compared to antipsychotic‐naïve participants. MetS risk was significantly higher with clozapine and olanzapine (except vs. clozapine) than other antipsychotics, and significantly lower with aripiprazole than other antipsychotics (except vs. amisulpride). Compared with matched general population controls, people with severe mental illness had a significantly increased risk for MetS (RR = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.35‐1.86; p<0.001) and all its components, except for hypertension (p = 0.07). These data suggest that the risk for MetS is similarly elevated in the diagnostic subgroups of severe mental illness. Routine screening and multidisciplinary management of medical and behavioral conditions is needed in these patients. Risks of individual antipsychotics should be considered when making treatment choices.

There is increasing academic and clinical interest in how “lifestyle factors” traditionally associated with physical health may also relate to mental health and psychological well‐being. In response, international and national health bodies are producing guidelines to address health behaviors in the prevention and treatment of mental illness. However, the current evidence for the causal role of lifestyle factors in the onset and prognosis of mental disorders is unclear. We performed a systematic meta‐review of the top‐tier evidence examining how physical activity, sleep, dietary patterns and tobacco smoking impact on the risk and treatment outcomes across a range of mental disorders. Results from 29 meta‐analyses of prospective/cohort studies, 12 Mendelian randomization studies, two meta‐reviews, and two meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials were synthesized to generate overviews of the evidence for targeting each of the specific lifestyle factors in the prevention and treatment of depression, anxiety and stress‐related disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Standout findings include: a) convergent evidence indicating the use of physical activity in primary prevention and clinical treatment across a spectrum of mental disorders; b) emerging evidence implicating tobacco smoking as a causal factor in onset of both common and severe mental illness; c) the need to clearly establish causal relations between dietary patterns and risk of mental illness, and how diet should be best addressed within mental health care; and d) poor sleep as a risk factor for mental illness, although with further research required to understand the complex, bidirectional relations and the benefits of non‐pharmacological sleep‐focused interventions. The potentially shared neurobiological pathways between multiple lifestyle factors and mental health are discussed, along with directions for future research, and recommendations for the implementation of these findings at public health and clinical service levels.

Perinatal mental health has become a significant focus of interest in recent years, with investment in new specialist mental health services in some high‐income countries, and inpatient psychiatric mother and baby units in diverse settings. In this paper, we summarize and critically examine the epidemiology and impact of perinatal mental disorders, including emerging evidence of an increase of their prevalence in young pregnant women. Perinatal mental disorders are among the commonest morbidities of pregnancy, and make an important contribution to maternal mortality, as well as to adverse neonatal, infant and child outcomes. We then review the current evidence base on interventions, including individual level and public health ones, as well as service delivery models. Randomized controlled trials provide evidence on the effectiveness of psychological and psychosocial interventions at the individual level, though it is not yet clear which women with perinatal mental disorders also need additional support for parenting. The evidence base on psychotropic use in pregnancy is almost exclusively observational. There is little research on the full range of perinatal mental disorders, on how to improve access to treatment for women with psychosocial difficulties, and on the effectiveness of different service delivery models. We conclude with research and clinical implications, which, we argue, highlight the need for an extension of generic psychiatric services to include preconception care, and further investment into public health interventions, in addition to perinatal mental health services, potentially for women and men, to reduce maternal and child morbidity and mortality.

Negative symptoms have long been conceptualized as a core aspect of schizophrenia. They play a key role in the functional outcome of the disorder, and their management represents a significant unmet need. Improvements in definition, characterization, assessment instruments and experimental models are needed in order to foster research aimed at developing effective interventions. A consensus has recently been reached on the following aspects: a) five constructs should be considered as negative symptoms, i.e. blunted affect, alogia, anhedonia, asociality and avolition; b) for each construct, symptoms due to identifiable factors, such as medication effects, psychotic symptoms or depression, should be distinguished from those regarded as primary; c) the five constructs cluster in two factors, one including blunted affect and alogia and the other consisting of anhedonia, avolition and asociality. In this paper, for each construct, we report the current definition; highlight differences among the main assessment instruments; illustrate quantitative measures, if available, and their relationship with the evaluations based on rating scales; and describe correlates as well as experimental models. We conclude that: a) the assessment of the negative symptom dimension has recently improved, but even current expert consensus‐based instruments diverge on several aspects; b) the use of objective measures might contribute to overcome uncertainties about the reliability of rating scales, but these measures require further investigation and validation; c) the boundaries with other illness components, in particular neurocognition and social cognition, are not well defined; and d) without further reducing the heterogeneity within the negative symptom dimension, attempts to develop successful interventions are likely to lead to great efforts paid back by small rewards.

This paper reviews the research evidence concerning the intergenerational transmission of trauma effects and the possible role of epigenetic mechanisms in this transmission. Two broad categories of epigenetically mediated effects are highlighted. The first involves developmentally programmed effects. These can result from the influence of the offspring's early environmental exposures, including postnatal maternal care as well as in utero exposure reflecting maternal stress during pregnancy. The second includes epigenetic changes associated with a preconception trauma in parents that may affect the germline, and impact fetoplacental interactions. Several factors, such as sex‐specific epigenetic effects following trauma exposure and parental developmental stage at the time of exposure, explain different effects of maternal and paternal trauma. The most compelling work to date has been done in animal models, where the opportunity for controlled designs enables clear interpretations of transmissible effects. Given the paucity of human studies and the methodological challenges in conducting such studies, it is not possible to attribute intergenerational effects in humans to a single set of biological or other determinants at this time. Elucidating the role of epigenetic mechanisms in intergenerational effects through prospective, multi‐generational studies may ultimately yield a cogent understanding of how individual, cultural and societal experiences permeate our biology.

Glutamate and dopamine systems play distinct roles in terms of neuronal signalling, yet both have been proposed to contribute significantly to the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. In this paper we assess research that has implicated both systems in the aetiology of this disorder. We examine evidence from post‐mortem, preclinical, pharmacological and in vivo neuroimaging studies. Pharmacological and preclinical studies implicate both systems, and in vivo imaging of the dopamine system has consistently identified elevated striatal dopamine synthesis and release capacity in schizophrenia. Imaging of the glutamate system and other aspects of research on the dopamine system have produced less consistent findings, potentially due to methodological limitations and the heterogeneity of the disorder. Converging evidence indicates that genetic and environmental risk factors for schizophrenia underlie disruption of glutamatergic and dopaminergic function. However, while genetic influences may directly underlie glutamatergic dysfunction, few genetic risk variants directly implicate the dopamine system, indicating that aberrant dopamine signalling is likely to be predominantly due to other factors. We discuss the neural circuits through which the two systems interact, and how their disruption may cause psychotic symptoms. We also discuss mechanisms through which existing treatments operate, and how recent research has highlighted opportunities for the development of novel pharmacological therapies. Finally, we consider outstanding questions for the field, including what remains unknown regarding the nature of glutamate and dopamine function in schizophrenia, and what needs to be achieved to make progress in developing new treatments.