4.6 Article

Predicting prognosis in patients with first-episode psychosis using auditory P300: A 1-year follow-up study

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 46-54

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.10.011

Keywords

P300; Event-related potential; First-episode psychosis; Schizophrenia; Prognosis

Funding

  1. Brain Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning [2017M3C7A1029610]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To clarify the role of auditory P300 in predicting prognosis in patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP) during a 1-year follow-up. Methods: Auditory P300 of 24 patients with FEP and 24 matched healthy control (HC) participants were measured at baseline. The clinical status of the FEP patients was assessed at baseline and reassessed after 1 year. P300 amplitudes and latencies among the groups were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the predictive value of P300 in patients with FEP during the 1-year follow-up. Results: Auditory P300 amplitudes were significantly smaller in FEP patients than HCs. Higher baseline P300 amplitudes at CPz significantly predicted better improvements in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total, positive, and general scores, as well as in the Global Assessment of Functioning and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Conclusions: P300 may predict improvements in symptoms, functional status, and overall psychiatric status in patients with FEP. Significance: We first show that P300 amplitude at baseline predicts symptomatic and functional improvements after 1 year of treatment in patients with FEP. This finding may aid in effective interventions from the beginning of a psychotic episode to improve subsequent outcomes in clinical practice. (C) 2018 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available