Jessica R Lunsford-Avery1, Monique K LeBourgeois2, Tina Gupta3, Vijay A Mittal4. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA. 3. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA. 4. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA; Center for Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance is prevalent among patients with psychosis, yet little is known about sleep health during the ultra high-risk (UHR) period. This study used actigraphy to evaluate sleep in healthy control (HC) and UHR adolescents to examine the relationship between sleep disturbance and psychosis symptoms at baseline and 12-month follow-up, as well as comparisons between objective and subjective measurements of sleep functioning in UHR youth. METHOD: Thirty-six UHR and 31 HC youth participated in a baseline evaluation including 5 nights of actigraphy, subjective measurement of sleep health (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; PSQI), and clinical interviews. Clinical measures were repeated with UHR youth (N=23) at a 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: The actigraphy data indicated that UHR youth displayed increased wake time after onset (WASO), increased movements during sleep, and decreased efficiency compared to HC, and several markers of sleep disturbance including decreased efficiency, increased WASO, number of awakenings, and increased movements were associated with symptomatology in the UHR group. Interestingly, there were associations between actigraph and self-report indices of sleep duration and efficiency (at the trend level) but not awakenings. Several objective measures of sleep disturbance and one self-reported measure (disrupted continuity) predicted the longitudinal course of symptoms over 12 months in the UHR group. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, the results suggest a potential role for sleep problems in the etiology of schizophrenia, and highlight sleep health as a possible target for prevention/intervention efforts. Additionally, actigraphy represents an inexpensive, sensitive measurement providing unique information not captured by self-report, and may be an informative adjunct to UHR assessments.
BACKGROUND:Sleep disturbance is prevalent among patients with psychosis, yet little is known about sleep health during the ultra high-risk (UHR) period. This study used actigraphy to evaluate sleep in healthy control (HC) and UHR adolescents to examine the relationship between sleep disturbance and psychosis symptoms at baseline and 12-month follow-up, as well as comparisons between objective and subjective measurements of sleep functioning in UHR youth. METHOD: Thirty-six UHR and 31 HC youth participated in a baseline evaluation including 5 nights of actigraphy, subjective measurement of sleep health (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; PSQI), and clinical interviews. Clinical measures were repeated with UHR youth (N=23) at a 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: The actigraphy data indicated that UHR youth displayed increased wake time after onset (WASO), increased movements during sleep, and decreased efficiency compared to HC, and several markers of sleep disturbance including decreased efficiency, increased WASO, number of awakenings, and increased movements were associated with symptomatology in the UHR group. Interestingly, there were associations between actigraph and self-report indices of sleep duration and efficiency (at the trend level) but not awakenings. Several objective measures of sleep disturbance and one self-reported measure (disrupted continuity) predicted the longitudinal course of symptoms over 12 months in the UHR group. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, the results suggest a potential role for sleep problems in the etiology of schizophrenia, and highlight sleep health as a possible target for prevention/intervention efforts. Additionally, actigraphy represents an inexpensive, sensitive measurement providing unique information not captured by self-report, and may be an informative adjunct to UHR assessments.
Authors: Tanja Svirskis; Jyrki Korkeila; Markus Heinimaa; Jukka Huttunen; Tuula Ilonen; Terja Ristkari; Thomas McGlashan; Raimo K R Salokangas Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2004-12-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Raimo K R Salokangas; Stephan Ruhrmann; Heinrich Graf von Reventlow; Markus Heinimaa; Tanja Svirskis; Tiina From; Sinikka Luutonen; Georg Juckel; Don Linszen; Peter Dingemans; Max Birchwood; Paul Patterson; Frauke Schultze-Lutter; Joachim Klosterkötter Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2012-03-31 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Jessica R Lunsford-Avery; Bruno da Silva Brandão Gonçalves; Elisa Brietzke; Rodrigo A Bressan; Ary Gadelha; Randy P Auerbach; Vijay A Mittal Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2017-02-04 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Katrina B Goines; Allison M LoPilato; Jean Addington; Carrie E Bearden; Kristin S Cadenhead; Tyrone D Cannon; Barbara A Cornblatt; Daniel H Mathalon; Thomas H McGlashan; Diana O Perkins; Ming T Tsuang; Scott W Woods; Elaine F Walker Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2019-08-03 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Jack J Blanchard; Alexandra Andrea; Ryan D Orth; Christina Savage; Melanie E Bennett Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Elisha K Josev; Melinda L Jackson; Bei Bei; John Trinder; Adrienne Harvey; Cathriona Clarke; Kelli Snodgrass; Adam Scheinberg; Sarah J Knight Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Ahmad Mayeli; Alice LaGoy; Francesco L Donati; Rachel E Kaskie; Seyed Morteza Najibi; Fabio Ferrarelli Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 4.791