World Psychiatry

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.

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.

Genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) have revealed hundreds of genetic loci associated with the vulnerability to major psychiatric disorders, and post‐GWAS analyses have shown substantial genetic correlations among these disorders. This evidence supports the existence of a higher‐order structure of psychopathology at both the genetic and phenotypic levels. Despite recent efforts by collaborative consortia such as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), this structure remains unclear. In this study, we tested multiple alternative structural models of psychopathology at the genomic level, using the genetic correlations among fourteen psychiatric disorders and related psychological traits estimated from GWAS summary statistics. The best‐fitting model included four correlated higher‐order factors – externalizing, internalizing, thought problems, and neurodevelopmental disorders – which showed distinct patterns of genetic correlations with external validity variables and accounted for substantial genetic variance in their constituent disorders. A bifactor model including a general factor of psychopathology as well as the four specific factors fit worse than the above model. Several model modifications were tested to explore the placement of some disorders – such as bipolar disorder, obsessive‐compulsive disorder, and eating disorders – within the broader psychopathology structure. The best‐fitting model indicated that eating disorders and obsessive‐compulsive disorder, on the one hand, and bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, on the other, load together on the same thought problems factor. These findings provide support for several of the HiTOP higher‐order dimensions and suggest a similar structure of psychopathology at the genomic and phenotypic levels.

The usefulness of current psychiatric classification, which is based on ICD/DSM categorical diagnoses, remains questionable. A promising alternative has been put forward as the “transdiagnostic” approach. This is expected to cut across existing categorical diagnoses and go beyond them, to improve the way we classify and treat mental disorders. This systematic review explores whether self‐defining transdiagnostic research meets such high expectations. A multi‐step Web of Science literature search was performed according to an a priori protocol, to identify all studies that used the word “transdiagnostic” in their title, up to May 5, 2018. Empirical variables which indexed core characteristics were extracted, complemented by a bibliometric and conceptual analysis. A total of 111 studies were included. Most studies were investigating interventions, followed by cognition and psychological processes, and neuroscientific topics. Their samples ranged from 15 to 91,199 (median 148) participants, with a mean age from 10 to more than 60 (median 33) years. There were several methodological inconsistencies relating to the definition of the gold standard (DSM/ICD diagnoses), of the outcome measures and of the transdiagnostic approach. The quality of the studies was generally low and only a few findings were externally replicated. The majority of studies tested transdiagnostic features cutting across different diagnoses, and only a few tested new classification systems beyond the existing diagnoses. About one fifth of the studies were not transdiagnostic at all, because they investigated symptoms and not disorders, a single disorder, or because there was no diagnostic information. The bibliometric analysis revealed that transdiagnostic research largely restricted its focus to anxiety and depressive disorders. The conceptual analysis showed that transdiagnostic research is grounded more on rediscoveries than on true innovations, and that it is affected by some conceptual biases. To date, transdiagnostic approaches have not delivered a credible paradigm shift that can impact classification and clinical care. Practical “TRANSD”iagnostic recommendations are proposed here to guide future research in this field.

Among the important changes in the ICD‐11 is the addition of 21 new mental disorders. New categories are typically proposed to: a) improve the usefulness of morbidity statistics; b) facilitate recognition of a clinically important but poorly classified mental disorder in order to provide appropriate management; and c) stimulate research into more effective treatments. Given the major implications for the field and for World Health Organization (WHO) member states, it is important to examine the impact of these new categories during the early phase of the ICD‐11 implementation. This paper focuses on four disorders: complex post‐traumatic stress disorder, prolonged grief disorder, gaming disorder, and compulsive sexual behaviour disorder. These categories were selected because they have been the focus of considerable activity and/or controversy and because their inclusion in the ICD‐11 represents a different decision than was made for the DSM‐5. The lead authors invited experts on each of these disorders to provide insight into why it was considered important to add it to the ICD‐11, implications for care of not having that diagnostic category, important controversies about adding the disorder, and a review of the evidence generated and other developments related to the category since the WHO signaled its intention to include it in the ICD‐11. Each of the four diagnostic categories appears to describe a population with clinically important and distinctive features that had previously gone unrecognized as well as specific treatment needs that would otherwise likely go unmet. The introduction of these categories in the ICD‐11 has been followed by a substantial expansion of research in each area, which has generally supported their validity and utility, and by a significant increase in the availability of appropriate services.