P Gallagher1, J M Gray1, S Watson1, A H Young2, I N Ferrier1. 1. Institute of Neuroscience (Academic Psychiatry), Newcastle University, UK. 2. Centre for Mental Health, Imperial College London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies of neurocognitive performance in bipolar disorder (BD) have focused predominantly on euthymia. In this study we aimed to compare the neurocognitive profile of BD patients when depressed with healthy controls and explore the component structure of neurocognitive processes in these populations. METHOD: Cognitive tests of attention and executive function, immediate memory, verbal and visuospatial learning and memory and psychomotor speed were administered to 53 patients with a SCID-verified diagnosis of BD depression and 47 healthy controls. Test performance was assessed in terms of statistical significance, effect size and percentile standing. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to explore underlying cognitive factor structure. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis revealed an overall group effect, depressed BD patients performing significantly worse than controls. Patients performed significantly worse on 18/26 measures examined, with large effect sizes (d > 0.8) on tests of speed of processing, verbal learning and specific executive/working memory processes. Almost all tests produced at least one outcome measure on which ∼25-50% of the BD sample performed at more than 1 standard deviation (s.d.) below the control mean. Between 20% and 34% of patients performed at or below the fifth percentile of the control group in working memory, verbal learning and memory, and psychomotor/processing speed. PCA highlighted overall differences between groups, with fewer extracted components and less specificity in patients. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, neurocognitive test performance is significantly reduced in BD patients when depressed. The use of different methods of analysing cognitive performance is highlighted, along with the relationship between processes, indicating important directions for future research.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies of neurocognitive performance in bipolar disorder (BD) have focused predominantly on euthymia. In this study we aimed to compare the neurocognitive profile of BDpatients when depressed with healthy controls and explore the component structure of neurocognitive processes in these populations. METHOD: Cognitive tests of attention and executive function, immediate memory, verbal and visuospatial learning and memory and psychomotor speed were administered to 53 patients with a SCID-verified diagnosis of BD depression and 47 healthy controls. Test performance was assessed in terms of statistical significance, effect size and percentile standing. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to explore underlying cognitive factor structure. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis revealed an overall group effect, depressed BDpatients performing significantly worse than controls. Patients performed significantly worse on 18/26 measures examined, with large effect sizes (d > 0.8) on tests of speed of processing, verbal learning and specific executive/working memory processes. Almost all tests produced at least one outcome measure on which ∼25-50% of the BD sample performed at more than 1 standard deviation (s.d.) below the control mean. Between 20% and 34% of patients performed at or below the fifth percentile of the control group in working memory, verbal learning and memory, and psychomotor/processing speed. PCA highlighted overall differences between groups, with fewer extracted components and less specificity in patients. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, neurocognitive test performance is significantly reduced in BDpatients when depressed. The use of different methods of analysing cognitive performance is highlighted, along with the relationship between processes, indicating important directions for future research.
Authors: J Volkert; M A Schiele; Julia Kazmaier; Friederike Glaser; K C Zierhut; J Kopf; S Kittel-Schneider; A Reif Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Joost A Agelink van Rentergem; Nathalie R de Vent; Ben A Schmand; Jaap M J Murre; Janneke P C Staaks; Hilde M Huizenga Journal: Neuropsychol Rev Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 7.444
Authors: Rachel Ann Moss; Andreas Finkelmeyer; Lucy J Robinson; Jill M Thompson; Stuart Watson; I Nicol Ferrier; Peter Gallagher Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Laura Maclachlan; Stuart Watson; Peter Gallagher; Andreas Finkelmeyer; Leonard A Jason; Madison Sunnquist; Julia L Newton Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michela Lupo; Giusy Olivito; Andrea Gragnani; Marco Saettoni; Libera Siciliano; Corinna Pancheri; Matteo Panfili; Marco Bozzali; Roberto Delle Chiaie; Maria Leggio Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 5.923