Abstract

Some but not other studies on oxytocin for schizophrenia, particularly those using a higher dose, indicate that oxytocin improves negative symptoms of schizophrenia. We performed an add-on randomized controlled trial to examine the effect of high-dose oxytocin, social skills training, and their combination in the treatment of negative symptoms and social dysfunction in schizophrenia. Fifty-one subjects with schizophrenia were randomized, employing a two-by-two design: intranasal oxytocin (24 IU X3/day) or placebo, and social skills training or supportive psychotherapy, for 3 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference in the total score from baseline to end-of-study of a semi-structured interview which assessed patients’ social interactions in 3 scenarios: sharing a positive experience, sharing a conflict, and giving support when the experimenter shared a conflict. The interactions were scored using the Coding Interactive Behavior Manual (CIB), clinical symptoms were assessed with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). No significant difference was found between groups in the total CIB or PANSS scores. The majority of comparisons in the different social interactions between oxytocin and placebo, and between social skills training vs supportive psychotherapy, were also nonsignificant. Social skills training reduced blunted affect and gaze. In post-hoc analyses of the support interaction, oxytocin improved synchrony and decreased tension, while in the positive interaction it improved positive affect and avoidance. None of these findings remained significant when controlling for multiple comparisons. In conclusion, oxytocin did not influence participants’ social behavior, and was not effective in improving the symptoms of schizophrenia.

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01598623

Introduction

Social disability is a hallmark of schizophrenia and considered part of the negative symptoms of the illness. Many patients have social abnormalities in early childhood,1 years before their first episode, which are predictive of the course and outcome of the illness.2,3 There are no effective pharmacological treatments for negative symptoms or social dysfunction.4–6

Oxytocin is a 9 amino-acid peptide synthesized in the hypothalamus, which acts both peripherally as a hormone and as a neurotransmitter in the brain. As a neurotransmitter, it has been found to play a key role in regulating mammalian, including human, social affiliation, such as sexual behavior and mother-infant and adult-adult pair-bond formation.7–10 Research in healthy humans has shown that intranasal administration of oxytocin impacts multiple social and emotional behaviors in a prosocial, pro-affiliative way, leading to an increase in trust, empathy, and eye contact.11–17 Studies on autism, a neurodevelopment disorder particularly linked with social dysfunction, have been equivocal.18–23

These observations suggest that oxytocin has the potential to be an effective prosocial intervention for schizophrenia as well. Initially, a few studies showed improvement in schizophrenia patients who received oxytocin,24–28 but subsequent studies failed to replicated these findings,29–35 meta-analyzed in Martins et al and Zheng et al.22,36 Those studies which found the clearest evidence for efficacy used a high dose of oxytocin, above 50 IU/day24,26; consequently our study evaluated oxytocin at 72 IU/day.

Some authors have hypothesized that combining medications with psychosocial intervention might help in the treatment of schizophrenia. Similar notions have been expressed regarding the use of cognition-enhancing medication, suggesting that patients who receive compounds that putatively enhance cognition should be treated with cognitive remediation at the same time.37–41 Ford and Young note that oxytocin increases the salience of social stimuli, increasing the signal-to-noise ratio of social information, and have specifically recommended that trials of oxytocin in autism be carried out combining behavioral therapy with oxytocin.42

Based on this concept, we administered oxytocin combined with social skills training focused on the key domains of social behavior impaired in schizophrenia, which are postulated to be improved by oxytocin. We used placebo as a control for the oxytocin and supportive psychotherapy as a control for the social skills training, and performed an add-on, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to examine the effects of intranasal oxytocin combined with social skills training in patients with schizophrenia patients.

Three main hypotheses guided the current study: (1) intranasal oxytocin at a high dose would be more beneficial compared to placebo in improving schizophrenia patients’ prosocial behavior and psychopathology; (2) social skills training would be more beneficial compared to supportive psychotherapy; (3) the combined effects of intranasal oxytocin together with the social skills training will be synergetic and will exceed the effects of each intervention on its own in improving prosocial behavior and negative symptoms.

Methods

Study Subjects

Participants were outpatients recruited from the Zachai Division of Psychiatry in the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel and by advertisements in rehabilitation centers, notice boards, and the internet.

The inclusion criteria were current DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder confirmed by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders43; 18–65 years of age; Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score greater than 55; social dysfunction as defined by a score of 4 (moderate) or higher on at least 1 or more of the following PANSS negative items: emotional withdrawal, poor rapport, or passive-apathetic social withdrawal. Subjects had to be on the same antipsychotic medication for 2 weeks before randomization. Adjunctive treatment with other psychotropics was allowed, provided that patients had been on the medication for at least 2 weeks prior to entry into the screening phase of the study. Changes in concomitant medications, both psychiatric and other, were allowed and recorded.

The study was approved by the local IRB, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01598623).

Study Design

This study utilized a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel, 2 × 2, double-blind, add-on design. Social skills training or supportive psychological therapy was administered by BA-level psychologists, 3 times a week, for the 3-week study period, for a total of 9 sessions. At baseline, a videotaped interview assessing the interaction between the subject and the experimenter was performed. Subjects were assessed once a week using the PANSS.44 At this weekly visit, and study medication inhalers were replaced. At the end of the 3 week period, subjects participated in a final, end-of-study visit during which all assessments were repeated.

Study Medication

Subjects received daily intranasal oxytocin (Syntocinon Spray, Novartis) or intranasal placebo (matching vials containing saline) for a period of 3 weeks. Based on the previous studies showing efficacy,24,27 oxytocin was dosed at 24 IU 3 times a day. Subjects received 2 inhalers of study medication during their weekly visit and returned the used inhalers. Due to the potential for loss of drug dripping out through the nares if not properly administered, subjects were instructed how to self-administer the medication, spraying six 0.1 ml insufflations while tilting the head slightly back. Subjects were instructed to administer study medication 3 times a day: morning, noon, and evening, before meals. The daily dose was divided into 3 times a day since the literature shows that oxytocin’s levels go down back to baseline levels after approximately 7 h,45,46 thus the need to take repeated doses throughout the day.

On days when social skills training or psychotherapy was given, subjects were given 1 oxytocin dose 30 min prior to the session.

Psychological Intervention

The social skills training was comprised of 9 sessions. The first 5 sessions were based on the relevant sessions from the Social Cognition and Interaction Training,47 which focus on understanding emotions. In these sessions, subjects were taught to define their emotions, and to link facial expressions to the emotions they portray. The last 4 sessions were from the Social Skills Training for Schizophrenia,48 focusing on starting conversation, listening to others, expressing positive as well as negative feelings. The training was administered individually rather than in a group format because different subjects were recruited at different times.

Supportive psychotherapy was administered as a control condition for the social skills training, to account for the nonspecific effects of therapist contact and interest, social interaction, and support. In these supportive psychotherapy sessions, subjects were encouraged to bring any particular topic to therapy, however, socially relevant topics were not addressed. Subjects underwent social skills training or supportive psychotherapy 3 times a week during the in-person clinical visits throughout the 3-week trial period. Subjects were instructed to administer study medication (oxytocin/placebo) 30 min before the session started. The psychological intervention was performed by 3 trained therapists, who followed a study-specific protocol for the social skills training. No formal training was performed.

Social Interaction Measures

Before and after the 3-week oxytocin/placebo administration subjects were videotaped in 3 interaction paradigms developed for the adult version of the Coding Interactive Behavior (CIB),49 consistent with prior research on the CIB in adolescents and adults.50–56 These included: (1) a “positive interaction” in which subjects were asked to recall a positive event or experience that occurred in their lives; (2) a “conflict interaction” in which subjects were asked to talk about a conflict that occurred in their lives; (3) a “support interaction” in which the experimenter shared an incident that occurred in her life (conflict at work or with a family member). Subjects were asked to share their feelings and opinions in light of that story. Interactions were coded off-line by blinded raters, using the CIB,49 a well-validated system for coding dyadic interactions. The CIB is a global rating system of dyadic interactions that includes multiple scales, each coded from 1 (low) to 5 (high) and with versions for newborns, infants, children, adolescents, and adults. The system has shown good psychometric qualities on multiple studies across a wide range of ages, cultures, normative, and psychiatric conditions.57 The adult version of the CIB contains multiple scales that address the individual’s behavior (eg, gaze, expressed affect, and anxiety) and scales addressing the nature of the dialogue between patient and experimenter (eg, reciprocity, synchrony, and fluency). The parameters were rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), with 0.5-point intervals. Reliability, rated as agreement of both raters on 10 paradigms averaged 91.74%.

Data Analysis

The primary outcome measure was the change from baseline in the total score of the structured assessment of social interaction (CIB) in oxytocin, compared with placebo on all patients. Total score was the sum of all prosocial item, minus the sum of items that were not prosocial. Secondary outcome measures included change from baseline in the CIB total score in the oxytocin vs placebo groups, with and without social skills training, and social skills training vs supportive psychotherapy, with or without oxytocin. Changes from baseline in the total PANSS and PANSS subscales in all groups were additional secondary outcome measures.

A mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) was performed with participants as a random effect. The main effect and the interaction effect of medication (oxytocin = 1 vs placebo = 0) and psychological treatment (social skills training = 1 vs supportive psychotherapy = 0) were tested for every outcome. Specifically, (1) the medication effect (oxytocin vs placebo), (2) the psychological treatment effect (social skills training vs supportive psychotherapy), and (3) the effect of the combinations of oxytocin and psychological therapy (oxytocin/social skills training, oxytocin/supportive psychotherapy, placebo/social skills training, placebo/supportive psychotherapy) were examined. To prevent spurious associations from multiple comparisons, the P values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction.

Separate analyses were performed for the CIB variables individually. An exploratory factor analysis with the principal axis factoring method was used to identify the underlying dimensions of CIB items. A 5-factor structure was selected, explaining 67% of the total variance. Factor scores were calculated using regression-based weights for each factor and used in the MMRM as outcome variables. The factor analysis was done on the CIB for all the subjects to identify its dimensions. We used a MMRM to analyze the direct effect of oxytocin, the direct effect of social skills training, or their interactions. Similar analyses were performed for all secondary measures, including PANSS total score, PANSS subscales, and PANSS factor scores.58 R version 4.1.0 was used for the analysis.

Results

There were no significant differences between the 4 groups on baseline demographic and clinical variables (table 1).

Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics of Subjects

MeasureOxytocin/Social Cognitive and Skills TrainingOxytocin/Supportive PsychotherapyPlacebo/Social Cognitive and Skills TrainingPlacebo/Supportive PsychotherapyOverallStatistic
Gender (male/female)10/111/08/410/339/8χ² (3) = 5.34 P = .14
Age (years ± SD)39.45 ± 11.5133.09 ± 9.7237.83 ± 11.9136.3 ± 8.3336.68 ± 10.33F(3,43) = 0.75 P = .52
Marital status (single/married/divorced)9/2/08/2/110/0/213/0/040/4/3χ² (6) = 8.74 P = .18
Education in years (mean ± SD)10.45 ± 5.5911.55 ± 4.1511.67 ± 2.2712 ± 3.9111.45 ± 4.01F(3,43) = 0.3 P = .82
Diagnosis (Schizophrenia/Schizoaffective)10/110/112/09/441/6χ² (3) = 5.8 P = .12
Age of onset24 ± 8.7922.5 ± 6.5424.67 ± 7.1123.85 ± 4.9423.78 ± 6.72F(3,43) = 0.19 P = .89
Duration of illness (mean ± SD)15.45 ± 6.2310.59 ± 10.2813.16 ± 11.1812.46 ± 7.6312.9 ± 8.91F(3,43) = 0.54 P = .65
PANSS Total at Baseline64 ± 14.6269.73 + 16.9666.17 + 10.8663.92 + 10.3565.87 ± 13.06F(3,43) = 0.47 P = .7
PANSS Positive at Baseline12.73 ± 5.1213.09 ± 4.9412 ± 3.5112.62 ± 3.1512.6 ± 4.09F(3,43) = 0.13 P = .93
PANSS Negative at Baseline19.55 ± 5.6422.73 ± 6.9523 ± 4.1120.54 ± 3.9721.45 ± 5.26F(3,43) = 1.18 P = .32
PANSS General Psychopathology at Baseline31.73 ± 6.9833.91 ± 9.0231.17 ± 6.7429.77 ± 5.3831.55 ± 7F(3,43) = 0.69 P = .55
MeasureOxytocin/Social Cognitive and Skills TrainingOxytocin/Supportive PsychotherapyPlacebo/Social Cognitive and Skills TrainingPlacebo/Supportive PsychotherapyOverallStatistic
Gender (male/female)10/111/08/410/339/8χ² (3) = 5.34 P = .14
Age (years ± SD)39.45 ± 11.5133.09 ± 9.7237.83 ± 11.9136.3 ± 8.3336.68 ± 10.33F(3,43) = 0.75 P = .52
Marital status (single/married/divorced)9/2/08/2/110/0/213/0/040/4/3χ² (6) = 8.74 P = .18
Education in years (mean ± SD)10.45 ± 5.5911.55 ± 4.1511.67 ± 2.2712 ± 3.9111.45 ± 4.01F(3,43) = 0.3 P = .82
Diagnosis (Schizophrenia/Schizoaffective)10/110/112/09/441/6χ² (3) = 5.8 P = .12
Age of onset24 ± 8.7922.5 ± 6.5424.67 ± 7.1123.85 ± 4.9423.78 ± 6.72F(3,43) = 0.19 P = .89
Duration of illness (mean ± SD)15.45 ± 6.2310.59 ± 10.2813.16 ± 11.1812.46 ± 7.6312.9 ± 8.91F(3,43) = 0.54 P = .65
PANSS Total at Baseline64 ± 14.6269.73 + 16.9666.17 + 10.8663.92 + 10.3565.87 ± 13.06F(3,43) = 0.47 P = .7
PANSS Positive at Baseline12.73 ± 5.1213.09 ± 4.9412 ± 3.5112.62 ± 3.1512.6 ± 4.09F(3,43) = 0.13 P = .93
PANSS Negative at Baseline19.55 ± 5.6422.73 ± 6.9523 ± 4.1120.54 ± 3.9721.45 ± 5.26F(3,43) = 1.18 P = .32
PANSS General Psychopathology at Baseline31.73 ± 6.9833.91 ± 9.0231.17 ± 6.7429.77 ± 5.3831.55 ± 7F(3,43) = 0.69 P = .55
Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics of Subjects

MeasureOxytocin/Social Cognitive and Skills TrainingOxytocin/Supportive PsychotherapyPlacebo/Social Cognitive and Skills TrainingPlacebo/Supportive PsychotherapyOverallStatistic
Gender (male/female)10/111/08/410/339/8χ² (3) = 5.34 P = .14
Age (years ± SD)39.45 ± 11.5133.09 ± 9.7237.83 ± 11.9136.3 ± 8.3336.68 ± 10.33F(3,43) = 0.75 P = .52
Marital status (single/married/divorced)9/2/08/2/110/0/213/0/040/4/3χ² (6) = 8.74 P = .18
Education in years (mean ± SD)10.45 ± 5.5911.55 ± 4.1511.67 ± 2.2712 ± 3.9111.45 ± 4.01F(3,43) = 0.3 P = .82
Diagnosis (Schizophrenia/Schizoaffective)10/110/112/09/441/6χ² (3) = 5.8 P = .12
Age of onset24 ± 8.7922.5 ± 6.5424.67 ± 7.1123.85 ± 4.9423.78 ± 6.72F(3,43) = 0.19 P = .89
Duration of illness (mean ± SD)15.45 ± 6.2310.59 ± 10.2813.16 ± 11.1812.46 ± 7.6312.9 ± 8.91F(3,43) = 0.54 P = .65
PANSS Total at Baseline64 ± 14.6269.73 + 16.9666.17 + 10.8663.92 + 10.3565.87 ± 13.06F(3,43) = 0.47 P = .7
PANSS Positive at Baseline12.73 ± 5.1213.09 ± 4.9412 ± 3.5112.62 ± 3.1512.6 ± 4.09F(3,43) = 0.13 P = .93
PANSS Negative at Baseline19.55 ± 5.6422.73 ± 6.9523 ± 4.1120.54 ± 3.9721.45 ± 5.26F(3,43) = 1.18 P = .32
PANSS General Psychopathology at Baseline31.73 ± 6.9833.91 ± 9.0231.17 ± 6.7429.77 ± 5.3831.55 ± 7F(3,43) = 0.69 P = .55
MeasureOxytocin/Social Cognitive and Skills TrainingOxytocin/Supportive PsychotherapyPlacebo/Social Cognitive and Skills TrainingPlacebo/Supportive PsychotherapyOverallStatistic
Gender (male/female)10/111/08/410/339/8χ² (3) = 5.34 P = .14
Age (years ± SD)39.45 ± 11.5133.09 ± 9.7237.83 ± 11.9136.3 ± 8.3336.68 ± 10.33F(3,43) = 0.75 P = .52
Marital status (single/married/divorced)9/2/08/2/110/0/213/0/040/4/3χ² (6) = 8.74 P = .18
Education in years (mean ± SD)10.45 ± 5.5911.55 ± 4.1511.67 ± 2.2712 ± 3.9111.45 ± 4.01F(3,43) = 0.3 P = .82
Diagnosis (Schizophrenia/Schizoaffective)10/110/112/09/441/6χ² (3) = 5.8 P = .12
Age of onset24 ± 8.7922.5 ± 6.5424.67 ± 7.1123.85 ± 4.9423.78 ± 6.72F(3,43) = 0.19 P = .89
Duration of illness (mean ± SD)15.45 ± 6.2310.59 ± 10.2813.16 ± 11.1812.46 ± 7.6312.9 ± 8.91F(3,43) = 0.54 P = .65
PANSS Total at Baseline64 ± 14.6269.73 + 16.9666.17 + 10.8663.92 + 10.3565.87 ± 13.06F(3,43) = 0.47 P = .7
PANSS Positive at Baseline12.73 ± 5.1213.09 ± 4.9412 ± 3.5112.62 ± 3.1512.6 ± 4.09F(3,43) = 0.13 P = .93
PANSS Negative at Baseline19.55 ± 5.6422.73 ± 6.9523 ± 4.1120.54 ± 3.9721.45 ± 5.26F(3,43) = 1.18 P = .32
PANSS General Psychopathology at Baseline31.73 ± 6.9833.91 ± 9.0231.17 ± 6.7429.77 ± 5.3831.55 ± 7F(3,43) = 0.69 P = .55

Eighty-one subjects with schizophrenia were screened, 51 were randomized, and 47 completed the 3-week study. One of the subjects who dropped out agreed to arrive for an early discontinuation visit. Since she completed 16 days of the study, these visits were included in the analysis, leaving 3 dropouts (see CONSORT diagram, figure 1).

CONSORT diagram.
Fig. 1.

CONSORT diagram.

Factor analysis of the CIB revealed 2 major factor and 3 minor factors (see web supplement—Section 2.1): Factor 1 (Synergy) had high loading with higher scores on synchrony (factor loading = 0.91), persistence (0.83), reciprocity (0.72), fluency (0.66), acknowledgment (0.64), and motivation (0.44), together with negative scores for constriction (0.73) and withdrawal (−0.42). This factor reflects the main prosocial dimension of the CIB. Factor 2 (Elaboration) had high loading on initiative (0.77), elaboration (0.79), alertness (0.59), patient leading the conversation (0.64), and motivation (0.32), with negative scores for blunted affect (−0.59) and the experimenter leading the conversation (−0.69). Factor 3 (Tension) had high loading on tension (0.86), as well as lower loading on anxiety (0.39), criticism (0.32), negative affect (0.34), and persistence (0.43), with less gaze (−0.45) and less reciprocity (−0.33). Factor 4 (Withdrawal) had high loading on withdrawal (0.55) and silence (0.42), and decreased intrusiveness (−0.67). Factor 5 (Positive affect and mismatch of affect) had high loading on positive (0.85) or mismatched affect (0.77).

The Effect of Oxytocin and Social Skills Training on Total CIB Score

A mixed-effect model was performed to test the effect of oxytocin, social skills training, or the combination of both treatments on the change of the total CIB score over time, our primary hypothesis. Although oxytocin alone (coefficient 0.59, P = .39), and social skills training alone (coefficient 0.46, P = .5) directionally increased total score, this difference was not statistically significant. Oxytocin increased CIB Total in the supportive psychotherapy group (coefficient −1.11, P = .43) but this was not significant. See figure 2, table 2, and web supplement.

Table 2.

Two-way Complete Model for Oxytocin, Social Skills Training or Both for CIB and PANSS Outcomes

1. Two-way Complete Model
Predictors (Interaction With Time)Effect of OxytocinEffect of Social TreatmentInteraction Effect of Oxytocin and Social Treatment
OutcomesEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-value
CIB Total Score
Individual items
 Acknowledgment0.12 (−0.10, 0.35).311.000.03 (−0.19, 0.24).821.00−0.08 (−0.40, 0.25).651.00
 Alertness0.15 (−0.07, 0.37).201.000.17 (−0.04, 0.38).131.00−0.33 (−0.64, −0.01).061.00
 Anger0.01 (−0.06, 0.08).801.000.02 (−0.05, 0.09).561.00−0.05 (−0.16 , 0.05).361.00
 Anxiety0.05 (−0.06, 0.16).421.000.06 (−0.04, 0.17).271.00−0.17 (−0.33, −0.01).051.00
 Avoidance0.07 (0.00, 0.14).051.000.07 (0.00, 0.13).051.00−0.14 (−0.24, −0.05).01.18
 Blunt Affect−0.04 (−0.16, 0.08).551.00−0.13 (−0.24, −0.01).041.000.04 (−0.13, 0.22).651.00
 Constriction−0.13 (−0.30, 0.04).161.00−0.08 (−0.24, 0.08).351.000.12 (−0.12, 0.36).361.00
 Criticism−0.08 (−0.18, 0.02).161.00−0.06 (−0.16, 0.03).211.000.08 (−0.06, 0.23).281.00
 Detachment0.02 (−0.01, 0.06).261.000.01 (−0.02, 0.05).431.00−0.01 (−0.06, 0.04).721.00
 Elaboration0.09 (−0.11, 0.30).401.00−0.01 (−0.20, 0.19).961.00−0.05 (−0.34, 0.24).751.00
 Fluency0.15 (−0.01, 0.31).081.000.09 (−0.06, 0.24).241.00−0.15 (−0.37, 0.08).231.00
 Gaze−0.05 (−0.27, 0.16).631.000.19 (−0.01, 0.39).081.000.07 (−0.24, 0.37).671.00
 Hostility0.02 (−0.01, 0.06).181.00−0.00 (−0.03, 0.03)1.001.00−0.04 (−0.09, 0.01).111.00
 Initiation0.24 (−0.06, 0.54).141.000.09 (−0.19, 0.38).541.00−0.27 (−0.70, 0.16).231.00
 Instrusiveness−0.04 (−0.12, 0.04).311.000.01 (−0.07, 0.08).881.000.04 (−0.07, 0.15).521.00
 Therapist leads−0.01 (−0.17, 0.16).931.00−0.00 (−0.16, 0.15)1.001.00−0.07 (−0.30, 0.16).581.00
 Patient leads0.05 (−0.09, 0.20).471.000.02 (−0.12, 0.16).781.00−0.01 (−0.21, 0.20).961.00
 Mismatch Affect0.03 (−0.05, 0.11).441.000.03 (−0.04, 0.11).421.00−0.06 (−0.17, 0.06).341.00
 Motivation0.05 (−0.13, 0.24).581.000.15 (−0.02, 0.32).111.00−0.25 (−0.51, 0.01).081.00
 Negative Affect−0.19 (−0.39, 0.00).061.000.02 (−0.16, 0.21).801.000.13 (−0.15, 0.40).391.00
 Positive Affect0.13 (0.00, 0.26).061.000.06 (−0.06, 0.19).331.00−0.18 (−0.37, 0.01).071.00
 Persistence−0.05 (−0.20, 0.09).491.00−0.10 (−0.24, 0.04).191.000.03 (−0.18, 0.25).751.00
 Reciprocity0.05 (−0.10, 0.20).511.000.04 (−0.10, 0.18).621.00−0.05 (−0.26, 0.16).631.00
 Silence0.00 (−0.10, 0.10).931.000.02 (−0.08, 0.11).731.000.03 (−0.11, 0.18).651.00
 Synchrony0.10 (−0.06, 0.27).251.000.06 (−0.09, 0.22).441.00−0.12 (−0.36, 0.11).321.00
 Tension−0.11 (−0.24, 0.01).101.00−0.10 (−0.22, 0.02).131.000.08 (−0.11, 0.26).431.00
 Withdrawal0.00 (−0.14, 0.14).991.00−0.01 (−0.14 , 0.12).891.000.01 (−0.19, 0.21).951.00
Factors
 Synchrony0.11 (−0.15, 0.37).411.000.09 (−0.15, 0.33).491.00−0.15 (−0.52, 0.21).431.00
 Initiation0.14 (−0.09, 0.37).251.000.04 (−0.17, 0.26).701.00−0.02 (−0.35, 0.31).901.00
 Tension−0.21 (−0.47, 0.04).12.60−0.15 (−0.40, 0.09).231.000.09 (−0.27, 0.46).631.00
 Withdrawal0.01 (−0.26, 0.28).951.00−0.13 (−0.38, 0.13).351.000.08 (−0.30, 0.47).691.00
 Positive Affect0.28 (0.08, 0.49).01.060.19 (−0.00, 0.39).07.33−0.36 (−0.66, −0.07).02.11
1. Two-way Complete Model
Predictors (Interaction With Time)OxytocinSocial TreatmentSocial Treatment × Oxytocin
OutcomesEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-value
PANSS Total0.55 (−1.71, 2.80).631.00−0.45 (−2.66, 1.75).691.000.25 (−2.93, 3.44).881.00
PANSS Positive Score0.64 (−0.11, 1.39).10.87−0.04 (−0.77, 0.70).921.00−0.14 (−1.20, 0.92).791.00
PANSS Negative Score−0.21 (−1.22, 0.80).691.00−0.64 (−1.63, 0.35).211.001.33 (−0.10, 2.76).07.66
PANSS General Psychopathology Score0.08 (−1.22, 1.37).911.00−0.06 (−1.33, 1.21).931.00−0.64 (−2.47, 1.19).501.00
Withdrawal Factor−0.04 (−0.21, 0.12).611.00−0.12 (−0.29, 0.04).141.000.23 (−0.00, 0.47).06.52
Delusion Factor0.09 (−0.02, 0.21).11.990.02 (−0.09, 0.13).691.00−0.04 (−0.20, 0.12).601.00
Anxiety Factor−0.02 (−0.21, 0.17).821.000.00 (−0.19, 0.19)1.001.00−0.09 (−0.36, 0.18).531.00
Disorganization Factor−0.00 (−0.13, 0.12).951.000.03 (−0.09, 0.16).611.00−0.06 (−0.23, 0.13).551.00
Poor Control Factor0.01 (−0.10, 0.12).841.00−0.03 (−0.14, 0.08).641.00−0.00 (−0.16, 0.16).991.00
1. Two-way Complete Model
Predictors (Interaction With Time)Effect of OxytocinEffect of Social TreatmentInteraction Effect of Oxytocin and Social Treatment
OutcomesEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-value
CIB Total Score
Individual items
 Acknowledgment0.12 (−0.10, 0.35).311.000.03 (−0.19, 0.24).821.00−0.08 (−0.40, 0.25).651.00
 Alertness0.15 (−0.07, 0.37).201.000.17 (−0.04, 0.38).131.00−0.33 (−0.64, −0.01).061.00
 Anger0.01 (−0.06, 0.08).801.000.02 (−0.05, 0.09).561.00−0.05 (−0.16 , 0.05).361.00
 Anxiety0.05 (−0.06, 0.16).421.000.06 (−0.04, 0.17).271.00−0.17 (−0.33, −0.01).051.00
 Avoidance0.07 (0.00, 0.14).051.000.07 (0.00, 0.13).051.00−0.14 (−0.24, −0.05).01.18
 Blunt Affect−0.04 (−0.16, 0.08).551.00−0.13 (−0.24, −0.01).041.000.04 (−0.13, 0.22).651.00
 Constriction−0.13 (−0.30, 0.04).161.00−0.08 (−0.24, 0.08).351.000.12 (−0.12, 0.36).361.00
 Criticism−0.08 (−0.18, 0.02).161.00−0.06 (−0.16, 0.03).211.000.08 (−0.06, 0.23).281.00
 Detachment0.02 (−0.01, 0.06).261.000.01 (−0.02, 0.05).431.00−0.01 (−0.06, 0.04).721.00
 Elaboration0.09 (−0.11, 0.30).401.00−0.01 (−0.20, 0.19).961.00−0.05 (−0.34, 0.24).751.00
 Fluency0.15 (−0.01, 0.31).081.000.09 (−0.06, 0.24).241.00−0.15 (−0.37, 0.08).231.00
 Gaze−0.05 (−0.27, 0.16).631.000.19 (−0.01, 0.39).081.000.07 (−0.24, 0.37).671.00
 Hostility0.02 (−0.01, 0.06).181.00−0.00 (−0.03, 0.03)1.001.00−0.04 (−0.09, 0.01).111.00
 Initiation0.24 (−0.06, 0.54).141.000.09 (−0.19, 0.38).541.00−0.27 (−0.70, 0.16).231.00
 Instrusiveness−0.04 (−0.12, 0.04).311.000.01 (−0.07, 0.08).881.000.04 (−0.07, 0.15).521.00
 Therapist leads−0.01 (−0.17, 0.16).931.00−0.00 (−0.16, 0.15)1.001.00−0.07 (−0.30, 0.16).581.00
 Patient leads0.05 (−0.09, 0.20).471.000.02 (−0.12, 0.16).781.00−0.01 (−0.21, 0.20).961.00
 Mismatch Affect0.03 (−0.05, 0.11).441.000.03 (−0.04, 0.11).421.00−0.06 (−0.17, 0.06).341.00
 Motivation0.05 (−0.13, 0.24).581.000.15 (−0.02, 0.32).111.00−0.25 (−0.51, 0.01).081.00
 Negative Affect−0.19 (−0.39, 0.00).061.000.02 (−0.16, 0.21).801.000.13 (−0.15, 0.40).391.00
 Positive Affect0.13 (0.00, 0.26).061.000.06 (−0.06, 0.19).331.00−0.18 (−0.37, 0.01).071.00
 Persistence−0.05 (−0.20, 0.09).491.00−0.10 (−0.24, 0.04).191.000.03 (−0.18, 0.25).751.00
 Reciprocity0.05 (−0.10, 0.20).511.000.04 (−0.10, 0.18).621.00−0.05 (−0.26, 0.16).631.00
 Silence0.00 (−0.10, 0.10).931.000.02 (−0.08, 0.11).731.000.03 (−0.11, 0.18).651.00
 Synchrony0.10 (−0.06, 0.27).251.000.06 (−0.09, 0.22).441.00−0.12 (−0.36, 0.11).321.00
 Tension−0.11 (−0.24, 0.01).101.00−0.10 (−0.22, 0.02).131.000.08 (−0.11, 0.26).431.00
 Withdrawal0.00 (−0.14, 0.14).991.00−0.01 (−0.14 , 0.12).891.000.01 (−0.19, 0.21).951.00
Factors
 Synchrony0.11 (−0.15, 0.37).411.000.09 (−0.15, 0.33).491.00−0.15 (−0.52, 0.21).431.00
 Initiation0.14 (−0.09, 0.37).251.000.04 (−0.17, 0.26).701.00−0.02 (−0.35, 0.31).901.00
 Tension−0.21 (−0.47, 0.04).12.60−0.15 (−0.40, 0.09).231.000.09 (−0.27, 0.46).631.00
 Withdrawal0.01 (−0.26, 0.28).951.00−0.13 (−0.38, 0.13).351.000.08 (−0.30, 0.47).691.00
 Positive Affect0.28 (0.08, 0.49).01.060.19 (−0.00, 0.39).07.33−0.36 (−0.66, −0.07).02.11
1. Two-way Complete Model
Predictors (Interaction With Time)OxytocinSocial TreatmentSocial Treatment × Oxytocin
OutcomesEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-value
PANSS Total0.55 (−1.71, 2.80).631.00−0.45 (−2.66, 1.75).691.000.25 (−2.93, 3.44).881.00
PANSS Positive Score0.64 (−0.11, 1.39).10.87−0.04 (−0.77, 0.70).921.00−0.14 (−1.20, 0.92).791.00
PANSS Negative Score−0.21 (−1.22, 0.80).691.00−0.64 (−1.63, 0.35).211.001.33 (−0.10, 2.76).07.66
PANSS General Psychopathology Score0.08 (−1.22, 1.37).911.00−0.06 (−1.33, 1.21).931.00−0.64 (−2.47, 1.19).501.00
Withdrawal Factor−0.04 (−0.21, 0.12).611.00−0.12 (−0.29, 0.04).141.000.23 (−0.00, 0.47).06.52
Delusion Factor0.09 (−0.02, 0.21).11.990.02 (−0.09, 0.13).691.00−0.04 (−0.20, 0.12).601.00
Anxiety Factor−0.02 (−0.21, 0.17).821.000.00 (−0.19, 0.19)1.001.00−0.09 (−0.36, 0.18).531.00
Disorganization Factor−0.00 (−0.13, 0.12).951.000.03 (−0.09, 0.16).611.00−0.06 (−0.23, 0.13).551.00
Poor Control Factor0.01 (−0.10, 0.12).841.00−0.03 (−0.14, 0.08).641.00−0.00 (−0.16, 0.16).991.00

(1. Two-way complete model: Outcome ~ Oxytocin * Social Treatment * Time).

Table 2.

Two-way Complete Model for Oxytocin, Social Skills Training or Both for CIB and PANSS Outcomes

1. Two-way Complete Model
Predictors (Interaction With Time)Effect of OxytocinEffect of Social TreatmentInteraction Effect of Oxytocin and Social Treatment
OutcomesEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-value
CIB Total Score
Individual items
 Acknowledgment0.12 (−0.10, 0.35).311.000.03 (−0.19, 0.24).821.00−0.08 (−0.40, 0.25).651.00
 Alertness0.15 (−0.07, 0.37).201.000.17 (−0.04, 0.38).131.00−0.33 (−0.64, −0.01).061.00
 Anger0.01 (−0.06, 0.08).801.000.02 (−0.05, 0.09).561.00−0.05 (−0.16 , 0.05).361.00
 Anxiety0.05 (−0.06, 0.16).421.000.06 (−0.04, 0.17).271.00−0.17 (−0.33, −0.01).051.00
 Avoidance0.07 (0.00, 0.14).051.000.07 (0.00, 0.13).051.00−0.14 (−0.24, −0.05).01.18
 Blunt Affect−0.04 (−0.16, 0.08).551.00−0.13 (−0.24, −0.01).041.000.04 (−0.13, 0.22).651.00
 Constriction−0.13 (−0.30, 0.04).161.00−0.08 (−0.24, 0.08).351.000.12 (−0.12, 0.36).361.00
 Criticism−0.08 (−0.18, 0.02).161.00−0.06 (−0.16, 0.03).211.000.08 (−0.06, 0.23).281.00
 Detachment0.02 (−0.01, 0.06).261.000.01 (−0.02, 0.05).431.00−0.01 (−0.06, 0.04).721.00
 Elaboration0.09 (−0.11, 0.30).401.00−0.01 (−0.20, 0.19).961.00−0.05 (−0.34, 0.24).751.00
 Fluency0.15 (−0.01, 0.31).081.000.09 (−0.06, 0.24).241.00−0.15 (−0.37, 0.08).231.00
 Gaze−0.05 (−0.27, 0.16).631.000.19 (−0.01, 0.39).081.000.07 (−0.24, 0.37).671.00
 Hostility0.02 (−0.01, 0.06).181.00−0.00 (−0.03, 0.03)1.001.00−0.04 (−0.09, 0.01).111.00
 Initiation0.24 (−0.06, 0.54).141.000.09 (−0.19, 0.38).541.00−0.27 (−0.70, 0.16).231.00
 Instrusiveness−0.04 (−0.12, 0.04).311.000.01 (−0.07, 0.08).881.000.04 (−0.07, 0.15).521.00
 Therapist leads−0.01 (−0.17, 0.16).931.00−0.00 (−0.16, 0.15)1.001.00−0.07 (−0.30, 0.16).581.00
 Patient leads0.05 (−0.09, 0.20).471.000.02 (−0.12, 0.16).781.00−0.01 (−0.21, 0.20).961.00
 Mismatch Affect0.03 (−0.05, 0.11).441.000.03 (−0.04, 0.11).421.00−0.06 (−0.17, 0.06).341.00
 Motivation0.05 (−0.13, 0.24).581.000.15 (−0.02, 0.32).111.00−0.25 (−0.51, 0.01).081.00
 Negative Affect−0.19 (−0.39, 0.00).061.000.02 (−0.16, 0.21).801.000.13 (−0.15, 0.40).391.00
 Positive Affect0.13 (0.00, 0.26).061.000.06 (−0.06, 0.19).331.00−0.18 (−0.37, 0.01).071.00
 Persistence−0.05 (−0.20, 0.09).491.00−0.10 (−0.24, 0.04).191.000.03 (−0.18, 0.25).751.00
 Reciprocity0.05 (−0.10, 0.20).511.000.04 (−0.10, 0.18).621.00−0.05 (−0.26, 0.16).631.00
 Silence0.00 (−0.10, 0.10).931.000.02 (−0.08, 0.11).731.000.03 (−0.11, 0.18).651.00
 Synchrony0.10 (−0.06, 0.27).251.000.06 (−0.09, 0.22).441.00−0.12 (−0.36, 0.11).321.00
 Tension−0.11 (−0.24, 0.01).101.00−0.10 (−0.22, 0.02).131.000.08 (−0.11, 0.26).431.00
 Withdrawal0.00 (−0.14, 0.14).991.00−0.01 (−0.14 , 0.12).891.000.01 (−0.19, 0.21).951.00
Factors
 Synchrony0.11 (−0.15, 0.37).411.000.09 (−0.15, 0.33).491.00−0.15 (−0.52, 0.21).431.00
 Initiation0.14 (−0.09, 0.37).251.000.04 (−0.17, 0.26).701.00−0.02 (−0.35, 0.31).901.00
 Tension−0.21 (−0.47, 0.04).12.60−0.15 (−0.40, 0.09).231.000.09 (−0.27, 0.46).631.00
 Withdrawal0.01 (−0.26, 0.28).951.00−0.13 (−0.38, 0.13).351.000.08 (−0.30, 0.47).691.00
 Positive Affect0.28 (0.08, 0.49).01.060.19 (−0.00, 0.39).07.33−0.36 (−0.66, −0.07).02.11
1. Two-way Complete Model
Predictors (Interaction With Time)OxytocinSocial TreatmentSocial Treatment × Oxytocin
OutcomesEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-value
PANSS Total0.55 (−1.71, 2.80).631.00−0.45 (−2.66, 1.75).691.000.25 (−2.93, 3.44).881.00
PANSS Positive Score0.64 (−0.11, 1.39).10.87−0.04 (−0.77, 0.70).921.00−0.14 (−1.20, 0.92).791.00
PANSS Negative Score−0.21 (−1.22, 0.80).691.00−0.64 (−1.63, 0.35).211.001.33 (−0.10, 2.76).07.66
PANSS General Psychopathology Score0.08 (−1.22, 1.37).911.00−0.06 (−1.33, 1.21).931.00−0.64 (−2.47, 1.19).501.00
Withdrawal Factor−0.04 (−0.21, 0.12).611.00−0.12 (−0.29, 0.04).141.000.23 (−0.00, 0.47).06.52
Delusion Factor0.09 (−0.02, 0.21).11.990.02 (−0.09, 0.13).691.00−0.04 (−0.20, 0.12).601.00
Anxiety Factor−0.02 (−0.21, 0.17).821.000.00 (−0.19, 0.19)1.001.00−0.09 (−0.36, 0.18).531.00
Disorganization Factor−0.00 (−0.13, 0.12).951.000.03 (−0.09, 0.16).611.00−0.06 (−0.23, 0.13).551.00
Poor Control Factor0.01 (−0.10, 0.12).841.00−0.03 (−0.14, 0.08).641.00−0.00 (−0.16, 0.16).991.00
1. Two-way Complete Model
Predictors (Interaction With Time)Effect of OxytocinEffect of Social TreatmentInteraction Effect of Oxytocin and Social Treatment
OutcomesEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-value
CIB Total Score
Individual items
 Acknowledgment0.12 (−0.10, 0.35).311.000.03 (−0.19, 0.24).821.00−0.08 (−0.40, 0.25).651.00
 Alertness0.15 (−0.07, 0.37).201.000.17 (−0.04, 0.38).131.00−0.33 (−0.64, −0.01).061.00
 Anger0.01 (−0.06, 0.08).801.000.02 (−0.05, 0.09).561.00−0.05 (−0.16 , 0.05).361.00
 Anxiety0.05 (−0.06, 0.16).421.000.06 (−0.04, 0.17).271.00−0.17 (−0.33, −0.01).051.00
 Avoidance0.07 (0.00, 0.14).051.000.07 (0.00, 0.13).051.00−0.14 (−0.24, −0.05).01.18
 Blunt Affect−0.04 (−0.16, 0.08).551.00−0.13 (−0.24, −0.01).041.000.04 (−0.13, 0.22).651.00
 Constriction−0.13 (−0.30, 0.04).161.00−0.08 (−0.24, 0.08).351.000.12 (−0.12, 0.36).361.00
 Criticism−0.08 (−0.18, 0.02).161.00−0.06 (−0.16, 0.03).211.000.08 (−0.06, 0.23).281.00
 Detachment0.02 (−0.01, 0.06).261.000.01 (−0.02, 0.05).431.00−0.01 (−0.06, 0.04).721.00
 Elaboration0.09 (−0.11, 0.30).401.00−0.01 (−0.20, 0.19).961.00−0.05 (−0.34, 0.24).751.00
 Fluency0.15 (−0.01, 0.31).081.000.09 (−0.06, 0.24).241.00−0.15 (−0.37, 0.08).231.00
 Gaze−0.05 (−0.27, 0.16).631.000.19 (−0.01, 0.39).081.000.07 (−0.24, 0.37).671.00
 Hostility0.02 (−0.01, 0.06).181.00−0.00 (−0.03, 0.03)1.001.00−0.04 (−0.09, 0.01).111.00
 Initiation0.24 (−0.06, 0.54).141.000.09 (−0.19, 0.38).541.00−0.27 (−0.70, 0.16).231.00
 Instrusiveness−0.04 (−0.12, 0.04).311.000.01 (−0.07, 0.08).881.000.04 (−0.07, 0.15).521.00
 Therapist leads−0.01 (−0.17, 0.16).931.00−0.00 (−0.16, 0.15)1.001.00−0.07 (−0.30, 0.16).581.00
 Patient leads0.05 (−0.09, 0.20).471.000.02 (−0.12, 0.16).781.00−0.01 (−0.21, 0.20).961.00
 Mismatch Affect0.03 (−0.05, 0.11).441.000.03 (−0.04, 0.11).421.00−0.06 (−0.17, 0.06).341.00
 Motivation0.05 (−0.13, 0.24).581.000.15 (−0.02, 0.32).111.00−0.25 (−0.51, 0.01).081.00
 Negative Affect−0.19 (−0.39, 0.00).061.000.02 (−0.16, 0.21).801.000.13 (−0.15, 0.40).391.00
 Positive Affect0.13 (0.00, 0.26).061.000.06 (−0.06, 0.19).331.00−0.18 (−0.37, 0.01).071.00
 Persistence−0.05 (−0.20, 0.09).491.00−0.10 (−0.24, 0.04).191.000.03 (−0.18, 0.25).751.00
 Reciprocity0.05 (−0.10, 0.20).511.000.04 (−0.10, 0.18).621.00−0.05 (−0.26, 0.16).631.00
 Silence0.00 (−0.10, 0.10).931.000.02 (−0.08, 0.11).731.000.03 (−0.11, 0.18).651.00
 Synchrony0.10 (−0.06, 0.27).251.000.06 (−0.09, 0.22).441.00−0.12 (−0.36, 0.11).321.00
 Tension−0.11 (−0.24, 0.01).101.00−0.10 (−0.22, 0.02).131.000.08 (−0.11, 0.26).431.00
 Withdrawal0.00 (−0.14, 0.14).991.00−0.01 (−0.14 , 0.12).891.000.01 (−0.19, 0.21).951.00
Factors
 Synchrony0.11 (−0.15, 0.37).411.000.09 (−0.15, 0.33).491.00−0.15 (−0.52, 0.21).431.00
 Initiation0.14 (−0.09, 0.37).251.000.04 (−0.17, 0.26).701.00−0.02 (−0.35, 0.31).901.00
 Tension−0.21 (−0.47, 0.04).12.60−0.15 (−0.40, 0.09).231.000.09 (−0.27, 0.46).631.00
 Withdrawal0.01 (−0.26, 0.28).951.00−0.13 (−0.38, 0.13).351.000.08 (−0.30, 0.47).691.00
 Positive Affect0.28 (0.08, 0.49).01.060.19 (−0.00, 0.39).07.33−0.36 (−0.66, −0.07).02.11
1. Two-way Complete Model
Predictors (Interaction With Time)OxytocinSocial TreatmentSocial Treatment × Oxytocin
OutcomesEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-valueEstimates (CIs)P-valueQ-value
PANSS Total0.55 (−1.71, 2.80).631.00−0.45 (−2.66, 1.75).691.000.25 (−2.93, 3.44).881.00
PANSS Positive Score0.64 (−0.11, 1.39).10.87−0.04 (−0.77, 0.70).921.00−0.14 (−1.20, 0.92).791.00
PANSS Negative Score−0.21 (−1.22, 0.80).691.00−0.64 (−1.63, 0.35).211.001.33 (−0.10, 2.76).07.66
PANSS General Psychopathology Score0.08 (−1.22, 1.37).911.00−0.06 (−1.33, 1.21).931.00−0.64 (−2.47, 1.19).501.00
Withdrawal Factor−0.04 (−0.21, 0.12).611.00−0.12 (−0.29, 0.04).141.000.23 (−0.00, 0.47).06.52
Delusion Factor0.09 (−0.02, 0.21).11.990.02 (−0.09, 0.13).691.00−0.04 (−0.20, 0.12).601.00
Anxiety Factor−0.02 (−0.21, 0.17).821.000.00 (−0.19, 0.19)1.001.00−0.09 (−0.36, 0.18).531.00
Disorganization Factor−0.00 (−0.13, 0.12).951.000.03 (−0.09, 0.16).611.00−0.06 (−0.23, 0.13).551.00
Poor Control Factor0.01 (−0.10, 0.12).841.00−0.03 (−0.14, 0.08).641.00−0.00 (−0.16, 0.16).991.00

(1. Two-way complete model: Outcome ~ Oxytocin * Social Treatment * Time).

Fig. 2.

Interaction model with CIB total (a), PANSS total (b), and PANSS subscales (c) as outcomes.

The Effect of Oxytocin and Social Skills Training on Individual CIB Variables and Factors

For each of the 27 CIB social interaction items and the CIB Factors, comparisons were made between oxytocin and placebo, between the social skills training and supportive psychotherapy, and their interactions. This is presented in table 2. The effect of oxytocin is presented in the left panel, the effect of social skills training in the next panel, and the interaction of the 2 treatments in the third panel. The outcome in the far-right panels reflects the direct outcome of oxytocin vs placebo, and social skills training vs supportive psychotherapy, evaluated without the interaction. These results are presented in graphs with more statistical information in the web supplement. When comparing oxytocin to placebo, summing the results over all 3 scenarios, oxytocin had no significant effects on the 2 major factors Synergy or Initiative, as well as the Tension and Withdrawal factors. Oxytocin improved the positive affect factor (coefficient 0.28, CI: 0.08–0.49, P = .01), but did so only in the supportive psychotherapy conditions, (the opposite of the predicted effects), (interaction coefficient −0.36, CI: −0.66 to −0.07, P = .02), (see web supplement 1.1.3, page 9.) Social skills training reduced blunted affect, regardless of oxytocin treatment (coefficient −0.13, CI: −0.24 to 0.01, P = .04).

Overall, oxytocin led to a decrease in the avoidance item, when combined with social skills training, and there was an increase in the avoidance item in the supportive psychotherapy interactions, coefficient −0.14, CI: −0.24 to −0.05, P = .01, see figure 2 and web supplement 1.2.5 page 17. Social skills training, regardless of oxytocin, led toward an improvement in gaze (estimate 0.22, P = .01).

When controlling for multiple comparisons, none of these findings remained significant.

The Effect of Oxytocin and Social Skills Training in the 3 Social Interaction Conditions

Post-hoc analyses looking at the different CIB factors in the 3 (positive, conflicted, and supportive) social interactions separately (table 3) showed a few significant effects. In the positive social interaction, the positive affect factor improved in the oxytocin groups (coefficient 0.29, CI: 0.04−0.55, P = .03). In the conflict social interaction, the withdrawal factor (coefficient −0.33, CI: −0.57 to 0.08, P = .01) and the positive affect (coefficient 0.21, CI: 0.02–0.04, P = .04) showed improvement in the social skills training group compared to supportive psychotherapy. However, for those patients receiving social skills training together with oxytocin, withdrawal increased and positive affect decreased.

Table 3.

Full Interaction Model for the Effect of Oxytocin, Social Skills Training or Both on the 5 Factors in the 3 Different Social Interaction Scenarios

Full Interaction Model
Effect of OxytocinEffect of Social TreatmentInteraction Effect of Oxy and Social
coeflower ciupper ciP-valuecoeflower ciupper ciP-valuecoeflower ciupper ciP-value
Conflict Interaction
Synchrony−0.02−0.290.26.920.05−0.210.31.710.12−0.270.51.56
Initiation0.19−0.070.45.180.01−0.230.26.92−0.09−0.470.28.63
Tension−0.15−0.470.16.36−0.16−0.460.13.30.12−0.330.56.62
Withdrawal−0.16−0.410.1.25−0.33−0.57−0.08.010.390.030.76.05
Positive Affect0.14−0.070.34.210.210.020.4.04−0.45−0.74−0.16.01
Positive interaction
Synchrony0.09−0.230.41.59−0.1−0.40.2.54−0.15−0.60.3.53
Initiation0.01−0.270.29.960.16−0.10.43.250.07−0.330.46.75
Tension−0.14−0.420.15.37−0.14−0.40.13.340.04−0.360.44.85
Withdrawal0.14−0.220.5.46−0.06−0.40.28.74−0.15−0.660.36.58
Positive Affect0.290.040.55.030.07−0.160.31.56−0.32−0.680.04.1
Supportive interaction
Synchrony0.450.130.77.010.19−0.110.49.24−0.29−0.740.16.22
Initiation0.25−0.030.53.10.08−0.190.34.58−0.15−0.550.24.46
Tension−0.39−0.76−0.03.05−0.25−0.60.09.160.540.021.05.05
Criticism−0.28−0.610.05.11−0.18−0.50.13.280.15−0.330.62.56
Positive Affect0.13−0.190.45.45−0.13−0.430.18.43−0.07−0.530.39.77
Full Interaction Model
Effect of OxytocinEffect of Social TreatmentInteraction Effect of Oxy and Social
coeflower ciupper ciP-valuecoeflower ciupper ciP-valuecoeflower ciupper ciP-value
Conflict Interaction
Synchrony−0.02−0.290.26.920.05−0.210.31.710.12−0.270.51.56
Initiation0.19−0.070.45.180.01−0.230.26.92−0.09−0.470.28.63
Tension−0.15−0.470.16.36−0.16−0.460.13.30.12−0.330.56.62
Withdrawal−0.16−0.410.1.25−0.33−0.57−0.08.010.390.030.76.05
Positive Affect0.14−0.070.34.210.210.020.4.04−0.45−0.74−0.16.01
Positive interaction
Synchrony0.09−0.230.41.59−0.1−0.40.2.54−0.15−0.60.3.53
Initiation0.01−0.270.29.960.16−0.10.43.250.07−0.330.46.75
Tension−0.14−0.420.15.37−0.14−0.40.13.340.04−0.360.44.85
Withdrawal0.14−0.220.5.46−0.06−0.40.28.74−0.15−0.660.36.58
Positive Affect0.290.040.55.030.07−0.160.31.56−0.32−0.680.04.1
Supportive interaction
Synchrony0.450.130.77.010.19−0.110.49.24−0.29−0.740.16.22
Initiation0.25−0.030.53.10.08−0.190.34.58−0.15−0.550.24.46
Tension−0.39−0.76−0.03.05−0.25−0.60.09.160.540.021.05.05
Criticism−0.28−0.610.05.11−0.18−0.50.13.280.15−0.330.62.56
Positive Affect0.13−0.190.45.45−0.13−0.430.18.43−0.07−0.530.39.77
Table 3.

Full Interaction Model for the Effect of Oxytocin, Social Skills Training or Both on the 5 Factors in the 3 Different Social Interaction Scenarios

Full Interaction Model
Effect of OxytocinEffect of Social TreatmentInteraction Effect of Oxy and Social
coeflower ciupper ciP-valuecoeflower ciupper ciP-valuecoeflower ciupper ciP-value
Conflict Interaction
Synchrony−0.02−0.290.26.920.05−0.210.31.710.12−0.270.51.56
Initiation0.19−0.070.45.180.01−0.230.26.92−0.09−0.470.28.63
Tension−0.15−0.470.16.36−0.16−0.460.13.30.12−0.330.56.62
Withdrawal−0.16−0.410.1.25−0.33−0.57−0.08.010.390.030.76.05
Positive Affect0.14−0.070.34.210.210.020.4.04−0.45−0.74−0.16.01
Positive interaction
Synchrony0.09−0.230.41.59−0.1−0.40.2.54−0.15−0.60.3.53
Initiation0.01−0.270.29.960.16−0.10.43.250.07−0.330.46.75
Tension−0.14−0.420.15.37−0.14−0.40.13.340.04−0.360.44.85
Withdrawal0.14−0.220.5.46−0.06−0.40.28.74−0.15−0.660.36.58
Positive Affect0.290.040.55.030.07−0.160.31.56−0.32−0.680.04.1
Supportive interaction
Synchrony0.450.130.77.010.19−0.110.49.24−0.29−0.740.16.22
Initiation0.25−0.030.53.10.08−0.190.34.58−0.15−0.550.24.46
Tension−0.39−0.76−0.03.05−0.25−0.60.09.160.540.021.05.05
Criticism−0.28−0.610.05.11−0.18−0.50.13.280.15−0.330.62.56
Positive Affect0.13−0.190.45.45−0.13−0.430.18.43−0.07−0.530.39.77
Full Interaction Model
Effect of OxytocinEffect of Social TreatmentInteraction Effect of Oxy and Social
coeflower ciupper ciP-valuecoeflower ciupper ciP-valuecoeflower ciupper ciP-value
Conflict Interaction
Synchrony−0.02−0.290.26.920.05−0.210.31.710.12−0.270.51.56
Initiation0.19−0.070.45.180.01−0.230.26.92−0.09−0.470.28.63
Tension−0.15−0.470.16.36−0.16−0.460.13.30.12−0.330.56.62
Withdrawal−0.16−0.410.1.25−0.33−0.57−0.08.010.390.030.76.05
Positive Affect0.14−0.070.34.210.210.020.4.04−0.45−0.74−0.16.01
Positive interaction
Synchrony0.09−0.230.41.59−0.1−0.40.2.54−0.15−0.60.3.53
Initiation0.01−0.270.29.960.16−0.10.43.250.07−0.330.46.75
Tension−0.14−0.420.15.37−0.14−0.40.13.340.04−0.360.44.85
Withdrawal0.14−0.220.5.46−0.06−0.40.28.74−0.15−0.660.36.58
Positive Affect0.290.040.55.030.07−0.160.31.56−0.32−0.680.04.1
Supportive interaction
Synchrony0.450.130.77.010.19−0.110.49.24−0.29−0.740.16.22
Initiation0.25−0.030.53.10.08−0.190.34.58−0.15−0.550.24.46
Tension−0.39−0.76−0.03.05−0.25−0.60.09.160.540.021.05.05
Criticism−0.28−0.610.05.11−0.18−0.50.13.280.15−0.330.62.56
Positive Affect0.13−0.190.45.45−0.13−0.430.18.43−0.07−0.530.39.77

In the supportive interaction, oxytocin improved the synchrony factor (coefficient 0.45, CI: 0.13–0.77, P = .01), and decreased the tension factor (coefficient −0.39, CI: −0.76 to −0.03, P = .05). However, the opposite effect is seen for patients receiving oxytocin together with the social skills training (coefficient 0.54, CI: 0.02–1.05, P = .05).

All P values were not significant when controlling for multiple comparisons.

The Effect of Oxytocin and Social Skills Training on PANSS Scores

We evaluated the interaction effects of oxytocin and social skills training on the PANSS total score, its subscales, and the 5 PANSS factors, to test the hypothesis that oxytocin and social skills training potentiated each other. No statistically significant effects were reported for both the main interventions (oxytocin or social skills training) and the interaction of the 2 on any PANSS variable. The only significant main effect of oxytocin was the worsening of positive symptoms (coefficient estimate 0.56, 95% CI: 0.03–1.09, P = .04), when directly evaluated since the interactions was not significant. However, when correcting for multiple comparisons, this finding did not remain significant (table 2 and figure 2).

Discussion

This was an exploratory study, using the CIB coding instrument to test the effect of oxytocin, social skills training, and the combination of the 2 on patients with schizophrenia. This instrument has not been previously used in schizophrenia, therefore we looked at the total score, its factors, and individual items to explore the possible effect of oxytocin. Overall, oxytocin failed to improve social interactions and overall psychopathology, as seen in the (PANSS) analyses when we controlled for multiple comparisons.

Social Interactions

Before controlling for multiple comparisons, oxytocin did improve avoidant behavior. This is consistent with the literature and specifically with the theory of Kemp and Guastella,59 who suggest that oxytocin decreases avoidance and withdrawal. This finding is also supported by studies on rodents,60 borderline personality disorder,61 and social anxiety.62

Very interesting and relevant for our study is the work of Heinrichs et al63 which showed that the combination of intranasal administration of oxytocin and social support reduces both anxiety and neuroendocrine stress reactivity in healthy men. Although the social support given in the Heinrichs study is not identical to the social skills training given in our study, it suggests that in these situations when support is needed, oxytocin may be relevant.

Our study is consistent with several studies that failed to find oxytocin more effective than placebo on social functioning.31,35,64–68

Symptoms

We found no effect of high-dose oxytocin on clinical symptoms measured by the PANSS. Meta-analyses found oxytocin to be no better than placebo on PANSS total score,17,22,69 a finding consistent with other reviews.70 But several of the studies that did find oxytocin effective on the PANSS used high doses,24,26,27 which is why we used this high dose, but with no improvement. Furthermore, we found a hint of greater improvements for the placebo group in the PANSS positive subscale.

A meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials examined the efficacy of oxytocin in schizophrenia and found that oxytocin was superior to placebo for the PANSS general psychopathology scale, and was not different from placebo for PANSS total symptoms, positive or negative symptoms.69 However, when the researchers removed the study of Davis et al,28 due to intermittent administration of drug, the meta-analysis found improvement in negative symptoms. A meta-analysis of Sabe suggested that oxytocin might benefit negative symptoms, particularly if given at higher doses.30 Our findings failed to find oxytocin to significantly alter negative symptoms, particularly in the social skill training group.

Two studies similar to ours combined psychotherapy and oxytocin. Davis et al28 and Cacciotti-Saija et al,33 administered oxytocin and social skills training to schizophrenia patients for a period of 6 weeks. Both studies did not find improvements in positive symptoms.

Strengths and Limitations

Although we had a relative small sample size, this was the third-largest study on oxytocin in schizophrenia. Studies with larger sample sizes might yield more information on oxytocin’s potential as a therapeutic molecule. We cannot rule out that a dose higher than ours might be efficacious. Social functioning is complex, and we cannot rule out the possibility of oxytocin effecting some aspects not captured by our measures.

We administered oxytocin chronically for 3 weeks and at the end of study visit we administered the last dose 30 min before the assessment of social interactions. For that reason, we could not separate the influence of daily administration over the 3 week study period, from that of the last single administration. Scheduling an additional visit at least 3 days after the cessation of treatment, would have enabled us to differentiate between these possibilities. Oxytocin was administered 30 min before the social skills training or psychotherapy so that these treatments occurred when Oxytocin plasma and brain levels may have been elevated. However, previous studies have failed to find a difference between intranasal oxytocin and placebo among schizophrenia patients, even 20 h after the last oxytocin dose.71

An additional limitation of this study is the inclusion of subjects who were stable on antipsychotics for 2 weeks prior to randomization. This is a relatively short interval of medication stability, and might have led to the inclusion of patients who might not have been clinically stable, with potentially increased variability and reduced ability to discern a therapeutic effect of the experimental intervention.

The current study had a gender imbalance, with 38 males and 8 females, thus limiting the ability to make any gender-specific inferences. Also, tolerance and compliance were not measured and might have affected outcomes. However, other studies on intranasal oxytocin did not report significant side effects.

A major strength of this study was the inclusion of a “real-life” outcome measure, which has never used in schizophrenia studies testing oxytocin before. It is somewhat similar to another study, which assessed social skills in schizophrenia patients during role-playing after 6 weeks of oxytocin administration.25 That study also found no significant change in the quality of the interaction during rule playing in the oxytocin group.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study’s findings do not support the use of oxytocin, social skills training, or the combination of both as a treatment for schizophrenia.

Acknowledgments

Prof. Weiser has received advisory board/speaker’s fees/consultant fees/owns stock from Dexcel, Janssen, Lundbeck, Minerva, Pfizer, Acadia, Roche, and Teva. He reports personal fees from Stanley Medical Research Institute, outside the submitted work. Prof. Davidson is an employee and owns stock options of Minerva Neurosciences a Biotech developing CNS drugs. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Funding

This work was supported by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI)—Grant 11T-012. SMRI had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

References

1.

Weinberger
D.
Neurodevelopmental perspectives on schizophrenia
. In:
Psychopharmacology: The Fourth Generation of Progress
.
New York
:
Raven Press, Ltd
.;
1995
:
1171
1183
.

2.

Johnstone
EC
,
Macmillan
JF
,
Frith
CD
,
Benn
DK
,
Crow
TJ.
Further investigation of the predictors of outcome following first schizophrenic episodes
.
Br J Psychiatry.
1990
;
157
(
2
):
182
189
.

3.

Marwick
K
,
Hall
J.
Social cognition in schizophrenia: a review of face processing
.
Br Med Bull.
2008
;
88
(
1
):
43
58
.

4.

Carpenter
WT
,
Koenig
JI.
The evolution of drug development in schizophrenia: past issues and future opportunities
.
Neuropsychopharmacology.
2008
;
33
(
9
):
2061
2079
.

5.

Kirkpatrick
B
,
Fenton
WS
,
Carpenter
WT
,
Marder
SR.
The NIMH-MATRICS consensus statement on negative symptoms
.
Schizophr Bull.
2006
;
32
(
2
):
214
219
.

6.

Krause
M
,
Zhu
Y
,
Huhn
M
, et al.
Antipsychotic drugs for patients with schizophrenia and predominant or prominent negative symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci.
2018
;
268
(
7
):
625
639
.

7.

Argiolas
A
,
Gessa
GL.
Central functions of oxytocin
.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev.
1991
;
15
(
2
):
217
231
.

8.

Insel
TR.
Oxytocin—a neuropeptide for affiliation: evidence from behavioral, receptor autoradiographic, and comparative studies
.
Psychoneuroendocrinology.
1992
;
17
(
1
):
3
35
.

9.

McCarthy
MM
,
Altemus
M.
Central nervous system actions of oxytocin and modulation of behavior in humans
.
Mol Med Today.
1997
;
3
(
6
):
269
275
.

10.

Insel
TR.
The challenge of translation in social neuroscience: a review of oxytocin, vasopressin, and affiliative behavior
.
Neuron.
2010
;
65
(
6
):
768
779
.

11.

Carter
CS
,
Kenkel
WM
,
MacLean
EL
, et al.
Is oxytocin “nature’s medicine?”
Pharmacol Rev.
2020
;
72
(
4
):
829
861
.

12.

Jurek
B
,
Neumann
ID.
The oxytocin receptor: from intracellular signaling to behavior
.
Physiol Rev.
2018
;
98
(
3
):
1805
1908
.

13.

Feldman
R.
The neurobiology of human attachments
.
Trends Cogn Sci.
2017
;
21
(
2
):
80
99
.

14.

Guastella
AJ
,
Mitchell
PB
,
Dadds
MR.
Oxytocin increases gaze to the eye region of human faces
.
Biol Psychiatry.
2008
;
63
(
1
):
3
5
.

15.

Hurlemann
R
,
Patin
A
,
Onur
OA
, et al.
Oxytocin enhances amygdala-dependent, socially reinforced learning and emotional empathy in humans
.
J Neurosci.
2010
;
30
(
14
):
4999
5007
.

16.

Kosfeld
M
,
Heinrichs
M
,
Zak
PJ
,
Fischbacher
U
,
Fehr
E.
Oxytocin increases trust in humans
.
Nature.
2005
;
435
(
7042
):
673
676
.

17.

Yang
X
,
Wang
W
,
Wang
Y
,
Wang
X.
A meta-analysis of hormone administration effects on cooperative behaviours: oxytocin, vasopressin, and testosterone
.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev.
2021
;
126
:
430
.

18.

Andari
E
,
Duhamel
J-R
,
Zalla
T
,
Herbrecht
E
,
Leboyer
M
,
Sirigu
A.
Promoting social behavior with oxytocin in high-functioning autism spectrum disorders
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2010
;
107
(
9
):
4389
4394
.

19.

Guastella
AJ
,
Einfeld
SL
,
Gray
KM
, et al.
Intranasal oxytocin improves emotion recognition for youth with autism spectrum disorders
.
Biol Psychiatry.
2010
;
67
(
7
):
692
694
.

20.

Hollander
E
,
Bartz
J
,
Chaplin
W
, et al.
Oxytocin increases retention of social cognition in autism
.
Biol Psychiatry.
2007
;
61
(
4
):
498
503
.

21.

Huang
Y
,
Huang
X
,
Ebstein
RP
,
Yu
R.
Intranasal oxytocin in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders: a multilevel meta-analysis
.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev.
2021
;
122
:
18
27
.

22.

Martins
D
,
Paduraru
M
,
Paloyelis
Y.
Heterogeneity in response to repeated intranasal oxytocin in schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis of variance
.
Br J Pharmacol.
2022
;
179
(
8
):
1525
1543
.

23.

Yamasue
H
,
Okada
T
,
Munesue
T
, et al.
Effect of intranasal oxytocin on the core social symptoms of autism spectrum disorder: a randomized clinical trial
.
Mol Psychiatry.
2020
;
25
(
8
):
1849
1858
.

24.

Feifel
D
,
Macdonald
K
,
Nguyen
A
, et al.
Adjunctive intranasal oxytocin reduces symptoms in schizophrenia patients
.
Biol Psychiatry.
2010
;
68
(
7
):
678
680
.

25.

Gibson
CM
,
Penn
DL
,
Smedley
KL
,
Leserman
J
,
Elliott
T
,
Pedersen
CA.
A pilot six-week randomized controlled trial of oxytocin on social cognition and social skills in schizophrenia
.
Schizophr Res.
2014
;
156
(
2–3
):
261
265
.

26.

Modabbernia
A
,
Rezaei
F
,
Salehi
B
, et al.
Intranasal oxytocin as an adjunct to risperidone in patients with schizophrenia
.
CNS Drugs.
2013
;
27
(
1
):
57
65
.

27.

Pedersen
CA
,
Gibson
CM
,
Rau
SW
, et al.
Intranasal oxytocin reduces psychotic symptoms and improves theory of Mind and social perception in schizophrenia
.
Schizophr Res.
2011
;
132
(
1
):
50
53
.

28.

Davis
MC
,
Green
MF
,
Lee
J
, et al.
Oxytocin-augmented social cognitive skills training in schizophrenia
.
Neuropsychopharmacology.
2014
;
39
(
9
):
2070
2077
.

29.

Bürkner
P-C
,
Williams
DR
,
Simmons
TC
,
Woolley
JD.
Intranasal oxytocin may improve high-level social cognition in schizophrenia, but not social cognition or neurocognition in general: a multilevel Bayesian meta-analysis
.
Schizophr Bull.
2017
;
43
(
6
):
1291
1303
.

30.

Sabe
M
,
Zhao
N
,
Crippa
A
,
Strauss
GP
,
Kaiser
S.
Intranasal oxytocin for negative symptoms of schizophrenia: systematic review, meta-analysis, and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
.
Int J Neuropsychopharmacol.
2021
;
24
(
8
):
601
614
.

31.

Jarskog
LF
,
Pedersen
CA
,
Johnson
JL
, et al.
A 12-week randomized controlled trial of twice-daily intranasal oxytocin for social cognitive deficits in people with schizophrenia
.
Schizophr Res.
2017
;
185
:
88
95
.

32.

Buchanan
RW
,
Kelly
DL
,
Weiner
E
, et al.
A randomized clinical trial of oxytocin or galantamine for the treatment of negative symptoms and cognitive impairments in people with schizophrenia
.
J Clin Psychopharmacol.
2017
;
37
(
4
):
394
400
.

33.

Cacciotti-Saija
C
,
Langdon
R
,
Ward
PB
, et al.
A double-blind randomized controlled trial of oxytocin nasal spray and social cognition training for young people with early psychosis
.
Schizophr Bull.
2015
;
41
(
2
):
483
493
.

34.

Dagani
J
,
Sisti
D
,
Abelli
M
, et al.
Do we need oxytocin to treat schizophrenia? A randomized clinical trial
.
Schizophr Res.
2016
;
172
(
1–3
):
158
164
.

35.

Lee
MR
,
Wehring
HJ
,
McMahon
RP
, et al.
Effects of adjunctive intranasal oxytocin on olfactory identification and clinical symptoms in schizophrenia: results from a randomized double blind placebo controlled pilot study
.
Schizophr Res.
2013
;
145
(
1–3
):
110
115
.

36.

Zheng
W
,
Zhu
X-M
,
Zhang
Q-E
, et al.
Adjunctive intranasal oxytocin for schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials
.
Schizophr Res.
2019
;
206
:
13
20
.

37.

Scheidtmann
K
,
Fries
W
,
Müller
F
,
Koenig
E.
Effect of levodopa in combination with physiotherapy on functional motor recovery after stroke: a prospective, randomised, double-blind study
.
Lancet.
2001
;
358
(
9284
):
787
790
.

38.

Norberg
MM
,
Krystal
JH
,
Tolin
DF.
A meta-analysis of D-cycloserine and the facilitation of fear extinction and exposure therapy
.
Biol Psychiatry.
2008
;
63
(
12
):
1118
1126
.

39.

Chasson
GS
,
Buhlmann
U
,
Tolin
DF
, et al.
Need for speed: evaluating slopes of OCD recovery in behavior therapy enhanced with d-cycloserine
.
Behav Res Ther.
2010
;
48
(
7
):
675
679
.

40.

Montero-Odasso
M
,
Almeida
QJ
,
Burhan
AM
, et al.
SYNERGIC TRIAL (SYNchronizing Exercises, Remedies in Gait and Cognition) a multi-Centre randomized controlled double blind trial to improve gait and cognition in mild cognitive impairment
.
BMC Geriatr.
2018
;
18
(
1
):
1
15
.

41.

Lauriello
J
,
Lenroot
R
,
Bustillo
JR.
Maximizing the synergy between pharmacotherapy and psychosocial therapies for schizophrenia
.
Psychiatr Clin North Am.
2003
;
26
(
1
):
191
211
.

42.

Ford
CL
,
Young
LJ.
Refining oxytocin therapy for autism: context is key
.
Nat Rev Neurol.
2022
;
18
(
2
):
67
68
.

43.

First
MB
,
Pincus
HA.
The DSM-IV text revision: rationale and potential impact on clinical practice
.
Psychiatr Serv.
2002
;
53
(
3
):
288
292
.

44.

Kay
SR
,
Fiszbein
A
,
Opler
LA.
The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia
.
Schizophr Bull.
1987
;
13
(
2
):
261
276
.

45.

Weisman
O
,
Zagoory-Sharon
O
,
Feldman
R.
Intranasal oxytocin administration is reflected in human saliva
.
Psychoneuroendocrinology.
2012
;
37
(
9
):
1582
1586
.

46.

Van IJzendoorn
MH
,
Bhandari
R
,
Van der Veen
R
,
Grewen
KM
,
Bakermans-Kranenburg
MJ.
Elevated salivary levels of oxytocin persist more than 7 h after intranasal administration
.
Front Neurosci.
2012
;
6
:
174
.

47.

Penn
DL
,
Roberts
DL
,
Combs
D
,
Sterne
A.
Best practices: the development of the social cognition and interaction training program for schizophrenia spectrum disorders
.
Psychiatr Serv.
2007
;
58
(
4
):
449
451
.

48.

Bellack
AS.
Social Skills Training for Schizophrenia: A Step-by-Step Guide
.
New York
:
Guilford Press
;
2004
.

49.

Feldman
R.
Coding interactive behavior manual
. Unpublished manual;
1998
.

50.

Levy
J
,
Goldstein
A
,
Feldman
R.
Perception of social synchrony induces mother–child gamma coupling in the social brain
.
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci.
2017
;
12
:
1036
1046
.

51.

Levy
J
,
Goldstein
A
,
Influs
M
,
Masalha
S
,
Zagoory-Sharon
O
,
Feldman
R.
Adolescents growing up amidst intractable conflict attenuate brain response to pain of outgroup
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2016
;
113
(
48
):
13696
13701
.

52.

Lebowitz
ER
,
Silverman
WK
,
Martino
AM
,
Zagoory-Sharon
O
,
Feldman
R
,
Leckman
JF.
Oxytocin response to youth–mother interactions in clinically anxious youth is associated with separation anxiety and dyadic behavior
.
Depress Anxiety.
2017
;
34
:
127
.

53.

Schneiderman
I
,
Kanat-Maymon
Y
,
Ebstein
RP
,
Feldman
R.
Cumulative risk on the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) underpins empathic communication difficulties at the first stages of romantic love
.
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci.
2014
;
9
(
10
):
1524
1529
.

54.

Schneiderman
I
,
Kanat-Maymon
Y
,
Zagoory-Sharon
O
,
Feldman
R.
Mutual influences between partners’ hormones shape conflict dialog and relationship duration at the initiation of romantic love
.
Social Neurosci.
2014
;
9
(
4
):
337
351
.

55.

Feldman
R
,
Rosenthal
Z
,
Eidelman
AI.
Maternal-preterm skin-to-skin contact enhances child physiologic organization and cognitive control across the first 10 years of life
.
Biol Psychiatry.
2014
;
75
(
1
):
56
64
.

56.

Schneiderman
I
,
Zagoory-Sharon
O
,
Leckman
JF
,
Feldman
R.
Oxytocin during the initial stages of romantic attachment: relations to couples’ interactive reciprocity
.
Psychoneuroendocrinology.
2012
;
37
(
8
):
1277
1285
.

57.

Feldman
R.
Oxytocin and social affiliation in humans
.
Horm Behav.
2012
;
61
(
3
):
380
391
.

58.

Davis
JM
,
Chen
N.
The effects of olanzapine on the 5 dimensions of schizophrenia derived by factor analysis: combined results of the North American and international trials
.
J Clin Psychiatry.
2001
;
62
(
10
):
757
771
.

59.

Kemp
AH
,
Guastella
AJ.
Oxytocin: prosocial behavior, social salience, or approach-related behavior
?
Biol Psychiatry.
2010
;
67
(
6
):
e33
4; author reply e35
.

60.

Lukas
M
,
Toth
I
,
Reber
SO
,
Slattery
DA
,
Veenema
AH
,
Neumann
ID.
The neuropeptide oxytocin facilitates pro-social behavior and prevents social avoidance in rats and mice
.
Neuropsychopharmacology.
2011
;
36
(
11
):
2159
2168
.

61.

Brüne
M
,
Ebert
A
,
Kolb
M
,
Tas
C
,
Edel
MA
,
Roser
P.
Oxytocin influences avoidant reactions to social threat in adults with borderline personality disorder
.
Hum Psychopharmacol.
2013
;
28
(
6
):
552
561
.

62.

Radke
S
,
Roelofs
K
,
De Bruijn
ER.
Acting on anger social anxiety modulates approach-avoidance tendencies after oxytocin administration
.
Psychol Sci.
2013
;
24
:
0956797612472682
.

63.

Heinrichs
M
,
Baumgartner
T
,
Kirschbaum
C
,
Ehlert
U.
Social support and oxytocin interact to suppress cortisol and subjective responses to psychosocial stress
.
Biol Psychiatry.
2003
;
54
(
12
):
1389
1398
.

64.

Lee
MR
,
Wehring
HJ
,
McMahon
RP
, et al.
The effect of intranasal oxytocin on measures of social cognition in schizophrenia: a negative report
.
J Psychiatry Brain Sci.
2019
;
4
(
1
):
e190001
.

65.

Dwyer
KR
,
Andrea
AM
,
Savage
CL
, et al.
A randomized clinical trial of oxytocin or galantamine in schizophrenia: assessing the impact on behavioral, lexical, and self-report indicators of social affiliation
.
Schizophr Bull Open.
2020
;
1
(
1
):
sgaa001
.

66.

Cohen
AS
,
Mitchell
KR
,
Strauss
GP
, et al.
The effects of oxytocin and galantamine on objectively-defined vocal and facial expression: data from the CIDAR study
.
Schizophr Res.
2017
;
188
:
141
143
.

67.

Buchanan
RW
,
Kelly
DL
,
Strauss
GP
, et al.
Combined oxytocin and CBSST for social function in people with schizophrenia
.
J Clin Psychopharmacol.
2021
;
41
(
3
):
236
243
.

68.

Browne
J
,
Harvey
PD
,
Buchanan
RW
, et al.
A longitudinal examination of real-world sedentary behavior in adults with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders in a clinical trial of combined oxytocin and cognitive behavioral social skills training
.
Behav Sci.
2022
;
12
(
3
):
60
.

69.

Oya
K
,
Matsuda
Y
,
Matsunaga
S
,
Kishi
T
,
Iwata
N.
Efficacy and safety of oxytocin augmentation therapy for schizophrenia: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials
.
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci.
2015
;
266
:
439
450
.

70.

Heringa
SM
,
Begemann
MJ
,
Goverde
AJ
,
Sommer
IE.
Sex hormones and oxytocin augmentation strategies in schizophrenia: a quantitative review
.
Schizophr Res.
2015
;
168
:
603
613
.

71.

Busnelli
M
,
Dagani
J
,
De Girolamo
G
, et al.
Unaltered oxytocin and vasopressin plasma levels in patients with schizophrenia after 4 months of daily treatment with intranasal oxytocin
.
J Neuroendocrinol.
2016
;
28
(
4
).

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.