General and specific cognitive deficits in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: It is controversial whether the cognitive deficit in schizophrenia is better characterized as generalized or as reflecting relatively independent deficits in different cognitive domains. The issue has implications for assessment practice, intervention design, and the exploration of schizophrenia genetics. METHODS: We used a specialized structural equation modeling approach, single common factor analysis, to explore the relative importance of generalized versus independent cognitive deficits in schizophrenia. Eighteen subtest scores from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III and the Wechsler Memory Scale-III were included in the analysis. We analyzed these data for 97 schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder outpatients and 87 healthy control subjects. RESULTS: Approximately two thirds of the overall effect of a schizophrenia diagnosis on cognitive performance was mediated through a single common factor. The Wechsler subtest scores showed almost uniformly strong relationships with this factor. The independent associations of group status with the subtest scores were smaller in magnitude and only selectively significant. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively greater magnitude of illness effects mediated through the common factor in this analysis, compared with the specific, independent effects, suggests that a generalized cognitive deficit is a core feature of schizophrenia.     

INVOLVEMENT OF NON-NMDA AND NMDA RECEPTORS IN GLUTAMATE-INDUCED PRESSOR OR DEPRESSOR RESPONSES OF THE PONS AND MEDULLA

1. Fifty-five intact and six baroreceptor denervated and vagotomized cats of either sex were anaesthetized intraperito-neally with urethane (400 mg/kg) and a-chloralose (40 mg/kg). Responses of the systemic arterial pressure (SAP), mean SAP (MSAP) and sympathetic vertebral nerve (VNA) and renal nerve activities (RNA) were recorded. 2. In intact animals, monosodium L-glutamate (Glu, 0.1 mol/L, 50 nL) was microinjected into pressor areas of the locus coeruleus (LC), gigantocellular tegmental field (GTF), rostral ventrolateral medulla (RVLM) and dorsomedial medulla (DM), and the depressor areas of caudal ventrolateral medulla (CVLM). The induced actions were compared before and after microinjection of either glutamate antagonists, glutamate diethylester (GDEE, 0.5 mol/L, 50–100nL), a competitive AMPA receptor blocker, or 2-amino-5-phosphonovaleric acid (D-AP5, 0.025 mol/L, 50–100 nL), a competitive N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor blocker. GDEE completely blocked the increases of SAP and VNA elicited from all pressor areas. D-AP5 only partially blocked the pressor but slightly blocked VNA and RNA responses from LC, GTF and DM, particularly those from RVLM. Neither GDEE nor D-AP5 blocked the depressor responses of SAP and two nerve activities elicited from CVLM. 3. In baroreceptor denervated animals, NMDA (2 mmol/L, 50–100 nL) and AMPA (0.2 mmol/L, 50–100 nL) were micro-injected into the same pressor areas of GTF, RVLM and DM and the depressor area of CVLM responsive to Glu activation (0.1 mol/L, 30 nL). In RVLM, DM and CVLM, the results of either NMDA or AMPA were similar to those induced by Glu. However, in GTF, microinjection of either NMDA or AMPA did not induce similar responses to Glu. This suggests that the nature of GTF may differ from RVLM and DM. 4. The above results suggest that the Glu-induced pressor responses from LC, GTF, DM and especially RVLM, are primarily mediated through AMPA receptors. The Glu-induced depressor responses from CVLM may not be predominantly mediated by either AMPA or NMDA receptors. 5. In both baroreceptor-intact and -denervated cats stimulation of the pressor areas often produced an increase of VNA and a decrease of RNA, while in the depressor CVLM decreased both VNA and RNA. The VNA, but not RNA were positively correlated with the pressor responses, while both VNA and RNA were positively correlated with the depressor responses. This may suggest that neurons of the sympathetic vertebral and renal nerves are topographically organized in the brain.     

Evaluation of specialists'' outreach clinics in general practice in England: process and acceptability to patients, specialists, and general practitioners.

OBJECTIVES: The wider study aimed to evaluate specialists' outreach clinics in relation to their costs, processes, and effectiveness, including patients' and professionals' attitudes. The data on processes and attitudes are presented here. DESIGN: Self administered questionnaires were drawn up for patients, their general practitioners (GPs) and specialists, and managers in the practice. Information was sought from hospital trusts. The study formed a pilot phase prior to a wider evaluation. SETTING: Nine outreach clinics in general practices in England, each with a hospital outpatient department as a control clinic were studied. SUBJECTS: The specialties included were ear, nose, and throat surgery; rheumatology; and gynaecology. The subjects were the patients who attended either the outreach clinics or hospital outpatients clinics during the study period, the outreach patients' GPs, the outreach patients' and outpatients' specialists, the managers in the practices, and the NHS trusts which employed the specialists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Process items included waiting lists, waiting times in clinics, number of follow up visits, investigations and procedures performed, treatment, health status, patients' and specialists' travelling times, and patients' and doctors' attitudes to, and satisfaction with, the clinic. RESULTS: There was no difference in the health status of patients in relation to the clinic site (ie, outreach and hospital outpatients' clinics) at baseline, and all but one of the specialists said there were no differences in casemix between their outreach and outpatients' clinics. Patients preferred, and were more satisfied with, care in specialists' outreach clinics in general practice, in comparison with outpatients' clinics. The outreach clinics were rated as more convenient than outpatients' clinics in relation to journey times; those outreach patients in work lost less time away from work than outpatients' clinic patients due to the clinic attendance. Length of time on the waiting list was significantly reduced for gynaecology patients; waiting times in clinics were lower for outreach patients than outpatients across all specialties. In addition, outreach patients were more likely to be first rather than follow up attenders; rheumatology outreach patients were more likely than hospital outpatients to receive therapy. GPs' referrals to hospital outpatients' clinics were greatly reduced by the availability of outreach clinics. Both specialists and GPs saw the main advantages of outreach clinics in relation to the greater convenience and better access to care for patients. Few of the specialists and GPs in the outreach practices held formal training and education sessions in the outreach clinic, although over half of the GPs felt that their skills/expertise had broadened as a result of the outreach clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The processes of care (waiting times, patient satisfaction, convenience to patients, follow up attendances) were better in outreach than in outpatients' clinics. However, waiting lists were only significantly reduced for gynaecology patients, despite both GPs and consultants reporting reduced waiting lists for patients as one of the main advantages of outreach. Whether these improvements merit the increased cost to the specialists (in terms of their increased travelling times and time spent away from their hospital base) and whether the development of what is, in effect, two standards of care between practices with and without outreach can be stemmed and the standard of care raised in all practices (eg, by sharing outreach clinics between GPs in an area) remain the subject of debate. As the data were based on the pilot study, the results should be viewed with some caution, although statistical power was adequate for comparisons of sites if not specialties.