Cognitive impairment is a core symptom domain of schizophrenia. The effect of antipsychotics, the cornerstone of treatment in schizophrenia, on this domain is not fully clear. There is some evidence suggesting that antipsychotics may partially improve cognitive function, and that this improvement may vary depending on the specific cognitive domain. However, this research is confounded by various factors, such as age, duration/stage of illness, medication adherence, and extrapyramidal side effects that complicate the relationship between antipsychotics and cognitive improvement. Furthermore, antipsychotics—particularly the second generation, or “atypical” antipsychotics—can induce serious metabolic side effects, such as obesity, dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes, illnesses which themselves have been linked to impairments in cognition. Thus, the inter-relationships between cognition and metabolic side effects are complex, and this review aims to examine them in the context of schizophrenia and antipsychotic treatment. The review also speculates on potential mechanisms underlying cognitive functioning and metabolic risk in schizophrenia. We conclude that the available literature examining the inter-section of antipsychotics, cognition, and metabolic effects in schizophrenia is sparse, but suggests a relationship between metabolic comorbidity and worse cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia. Further research is required to determine if there is a causal connection between the well-recognized metabolic adverse effects of antipsychotics and cognitive deficits over the course of the illness of schizophrenia, as well as, to determine underlying mechanisms. In addition, findings from this review highlight the importance of monitoring metabolic disturbances in parallel with cognition, as well as, the importance of interventions to minimize metabolic abnormalities for both physical and cognitive health.

Patients with schizophrenia have exceedingly high rates of metabolic comorbidity including type 2 diabetes and lose 15–20 years of life due to cardiovascular diseases, with early accrual of cardiometabolic disease. In this study, thirty overweight or obese (Body Mass Index (BMI) > 25) participants under 40 years old with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and early comorbid prediabetes or type 2 diabetes receiving antipsychotic medications were randomized, in a double-blind fashion, to metformin 1500 mg/day or placebo (2:1 ratio; n = 21 metformin and n = 9 placebo) for 4 months. The primary outcome measures were improvements in glucose homeostasis (HbA1c, fasting glucose) and insulin resistance (Matsuda index—derived from oral glucose tolerance tests and homeostatic model of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR)). Secondary outcome measures included changes in weight, MRI measures of fat mass and distribution, symptom severity, cognition, and hippocampal volume. Twenty-two patients (n = 14 metformin; n = 8 placebo) completed the trial. The metformin group had a significant decrease over time in the HOMA-IR (p = 0.043) and fasting blood glucose (p = 0.007) vs. placebo. There were no differences between treatment groups in the Matsuda index, HbA1c, which could suggest liver-specific effects of metformin. There were no between group differences in other secondary outcome measures, while weight loss in the metformin arm correlated significantly with decreases in subcutaneous, but not visceral or hepatic adipose tissue. Our results show that metformin improved dysglycemia and insulin sensitivity, independent of weight loss, in a young population with prediabetes/diabetes and psychosis spectrum illness, that is at extremely high risk of early cardiovascular mortality. Trial Registration: This protocol was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02167620).

Little is known regarding optimal antipsychotic doses in the acute phase of schizophrenia. The aim of the present study was to employ the concept of minimum effective dose (MED) in examining efficacy and tolerability within this population. MED was identified for each antipsychotic through a previous systematic review. We then identified double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials that involved fixed-dose antipsychotic monotherapy in acute schizophrenia and compared the identified MED vs higher doses of the same oral antipsychotic. Studies were selected from a recent meta-analysis examining dose–response relationship of second-generation antipsychotics and haloperidol. We extracted the data on study discontinuation, psychopathology, extrapyramidal symptoms, and treatment-emergent adverse events. For each antipsychotic, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare outcomes between MED and 2-fold MED, and MED and 3-fold MED. A total of 26 studies involving 5618 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In terms of study discontinuation, significant differences were found in study discontinuation due to lack of efficacy between MED and higher doses, in favor of 2-fold and 3-fold MEDs. Regarding psychopathology, both 2-fold and 3-fold MEDs were superior to MED for total and positive symptom scores. As for side effects, 2-fold MED proved inferior to MED for parkinsonism scores and diarrhea, whereas 3-fold MED was inferior for akathisia, somnolence, and vomiting. Findings suggest that clinicians can dose an antipsychotic at 2-fold or 3-fold MED for patients with acute schizophrenia but should closely monitor side effects.

Pain is a universal experience, but it has been challenging to adequately define. The revised definition of pain recently published by the International Association for the Study of Pain addressed important shortcomings of the previous version; however, it remains narrow in its focus on sensory and emotional features of pain, failing to capture the substantial roles of cognitive and social core components of the experience and their importance to advances in pain management. This paper reviews evidence and theoretical models for the significant role social and cognitive factors play in pain experience and we argue that without explicit recognition of these core components in the definition, significant nuances are lost at a cost to understanding and clinical management of pain. A focus on sensory and emotional features perpetuates biomedical interventions and research, whereas recognition of cognitive and social features supports a multidimensional model of pain, advances in interdisciplinary care, and the benefits of cognitive behavioral therapy and self‐management interventions. We also explore the six Key Notes that accompany the new definition of pain, discuss their application to the understanding of pain in childhood, and, in doing so, further explore social and cognitive implications. Considerations are also described for assessment and treatment of pain in pediatric populations.