M Russo1, T E Van Rheenen2, M Shanahan1, K Mahon1, M M Perez-Rodriguez1, A Cuesta-Diaz1, E Larsen1, A K Malhotra3, K E Burdick1. 1. Department of Psychiatry,Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine,New York, NY,USA. 2. Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre,Department of Psychiatry,University of Melbourne,Melbourne,Australia. 3. Zucker Hillside Hospital - Northwell Health System,Glen Oaks, NY,USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our previous work revealed substantial heterogeneity in the cognitive profile of bipolar disorder (BD) due to the presence of three underlying cognitive subgroups characterized as: globally impaired, selectively impaired, or cognitively intact. In an effort to determine whether these subgroups are differentially related to genetic risk for the illness, we investigated whether cognitive deficits were more pronounced in unaffected siblings (UAS) of BD probands within identified clusters. METHODS: Cluster analysis was used to identify cognitive clusters in BD (N = 60). UAS (N = 49) were classified into groups according to their proband sibling's cluster assignment; comparisons were made across all clusters and healthy controls (HCs; N = 71). RESULTS: Three cognitive clusters in BD emerged: a globally impaired (36.7%), a selectively impaired (30%), and a cognitively intact cluster (33.3%). UAS showed a qualitatively similar pattern to their BD siblings; UAS of the globally impaired BD cluster showed verbal memory and general cognitive impairments relative to HCs. In contrast, UAS of the other two clusters did not differ from HCs. CONCLUSIONS: This study corroborates findings from prior work regarding the presence of cognitive heterogeneity in BD. UAS of subjects in the globally impaired BD cluster presented with a qualitatively similar cognitive profile to their siblings and performed worse than all other BD clusters and UAS groups. This suggests that inherited risk factors may be contributing to cognitive deficits more notably in one subgroup of patients with BD, pointing toward differential causes of cognitive deficits in discrete subgroups of patients with the disorder.
BACKGROUND: Our previous work revealed substantial heterogeneity in the cognitive profile of bipolar disorder (BD) due to the presence of three underlying cognitive subgroups characterized as: globally impaired, selectively impaired, or cognitively intact. In an effort to determine whether these subgroups are differentially related to genetic risk for the illness, we investigated whether cognitive deficits were more pronounced in unaffected siblings (UAS) of BD probands within identified clusters. METHODS: Cluster analysis was used to identify cognitive clusters in BD (N = 60). UAS (N = 49) were classified into groups according to their proband sibling's cluster assignment; comparisons were made across all clusters and healthy controls (HCs; N = 71). RESULTS: Three cognitive clusters in BD emerged: a globally impaired (36.7%), a selectively impaired (30%), and a cognitively intact cluster (33.3%). UAS showed a qualitatively similar pattern to their BD siblings; UAS of the globally impaired BD cluster showed verbal memory and general cognitive impairments relative to HCs. In contrast, UAS of the other two clusters did not differ from HCs. CONCLUSIONS: This study corroborates findings from prior work regarding the presence of cognitive heterogeneity in BD. UAS of subjects in the globally impaired BD cluster presented with a qualitatively similar cognitive profile to their siblings and performed worse than all other BD clusters and UAS groups. This suggests that inherited risk factors may be contributing to cognitive deficits more notably in one subgroup of patients with BD, pointing toward differential causes of cognitive deficits in discrete subgroups of patients with the disorder.
Authors: Claire Daban; Anabel Martinez-Aran; Carla Torrent; Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos; Vicent Balanzá-Martínez; Jose Salazar-Fraile; Gabriel Selva-Vera; Eduard Vieta Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2006 Impact factor: 17.659
Authors: Abraham Reichenberg; Philip D Harvey; Christopher R Bowie; Ramin Mojtabai; Jonathan Rabinowitz; Robert K Heaton; Evelyn Bromet Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Kayla R Donaldson; Emmett M Larsen; Katherine Jonas; Sara Tramazzo; Greg Perlman; Dan Foti; Aprajita Mohanty; Roman Kotov Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 4.662
Authors: Alexander W Charney; Eli A Stahl; Elaine K Green; Chia-Yen Chen; Jennifer L Moran; Kimberly Chambert; Richard A Belliveau; Liz Forty; Katherine Gordon-Smith; Phil H Lee; Evelyn J Bromet; Peter F Buckley; Michael A Escamilla; Ayman H Fanous; Laura J Fochtmann; Douglas S Lehrer; Dolores Malaspina; Stephen R Marder; Christopher P Morley; Humberto Nicolini; Diana O Perkins; Jeffrey J Rakofsky; Mark H Rapaport; Helena Medeiros; Janet L Sobell; Lena Backlund; Sarah E Bergen; Anders Juréus; Martin Schalling; Paul Lichtenstein; James A Knowles; Katherine E Burdick; Ian Jones; Lisa A Jones; Christina M Hultman; Roy Perlis; Shaun M Purcell; Steven A McCarroll; Carlos N Pato; Michele T Pato; Ariana Di Florio; Nick Craddock; Mikael Landén; Jordan W Smoller; Douglas M Ruderfer; Pamela Sklar Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2018-12-20 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Alexandre Paim Diaz; Valeria A Cuellar; Elizabeth L Vinson; Robert Suchting; Kathryn Durkin; Brisa S Fernandes; Giselli Scaini; Iram Kazimi; Giovana B Zunta-Soares; João Quevedo; Marsal Sanches; Jair C Soares Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: James A Karantonis; Sean P Carruthers; Susan L Rossell; Christos Pantelis; Matthew Hughes; Cassandra Wannan; Vanessa Cropley; Tamsyn E Van Rheenen Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 7.348