Persistence or recurrence of non-psychotic comorbid mental disorders associated with 6-year poor functional outcomes in patients at ultra high risk for psychosis

Comorbid diagnoses for youth at clinical high risk of psychosis

Several studies have demonstrated that youth at clinical high risk (CHR) of developing psychosis have a high prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders. Less is known about the impact of comorbid diagnoses on later conversion to psychosis and the change over time. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and distribution of psychiatric diagnoses at baseline and over time in the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS 2) and the role of comorbid diagnoses in conversion to psychosis. The NAPLS 2 sample consisted of 744 CHR youth and 276 healthy controls. Only 21% of the CHR group did not have a comorbid diagnosis with many have 2-3 DSM-IV comorbid diagnoses. The most common diagnoses were anxiety and depressive disorders, which did improve over time. The only diagnosis at baseline that differentiated the converters from the non-converters was cannabis misuse. Comorbidity, except for cannabis use, was essentially independent of clinical outcome. It is possible that those with comorbid diagnoses are preferentially the help-seeking individuals that present for help in our clinics and research projects and that those who are at risk but do not have a comorbid diagnosis may not be seeking help in the prodromal phase.

Improving outcomes of first-episode psychosis: an overview

Outcomes of psychotic disorders are associated with high personal, familiar, societal and clinical burden. There is thus an urgent clinical and societal need for improving those outcomes. Recent advances in research knowledge have opened new opportunities for ameliorating outcomes of psychosis during its early clinical stages. This paper critically reviews these opportunities, summarizing the state-of-the-art knowledge and focusing on recent discoveries and future avenues for first episode research and clinical interventions. Candidate targets for primary universal prevention of psychosis at the population level are discussed. Potentials offered by primary selective prevention in asymptomatic subgroups (stage 0) are presented. Achievements of primary selected prevention in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (stage 1) are summarized, along with challenges and limitations of its implementation in clinical practice. Early intervention and secondary prevention strategies at the time of a first episode of psychosis (stage 2) are critically discussed, with a particular focus on minimizing the duration of untreated psychosis, improving treatment response, increasing patients' satisfaction with treatment, reducing illicit substance abuse and preventing relapses. Early intervention and tertiary prevention strategies at the time of an incomplete recovery (stage 3) are further discussed, in particular with respect to addressing treatment resistance, improving well-being and social skills with reduction of burden on the family, treatment of comorbid substance use, and prevention of multiple relapses and disease progression. In conclusion, to improve outcomes of a complex, heterogeneous syndrome such as psychosis, it is necessary to globally adopt complex models integrating a clinical staging framework and coordinated specialty care programmes that offer pre-emptive interventions to high-risk groups identified across the early stages of the disorder. Only a systematic implementation of these models of care in the national health care systems will render these strategies accessible to the 23 million people worldwide suffering from the most severe psychiatric disorders.

The Role of Trauma and Stressful Life Events among Individuals at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis: A Review

The experience of childhood trauma (CT) and stressful life events (SLEs) is associated with subsequent development of a variety of mental health conditions, including psychotic illness. Recent research identifying adolescents and young adults at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis allows for prospective evaluation of the impact of trauma and adverse life events on psychosis onset and other outcomes, addressing etiological questions that cannot be answered in studies of fully psychotic or non-clinical populations. This article provides a comprehensive review of the current emerging literature on trauma and adverse life events in the CHR population. Up to 80% of CHR youth endorse a lifetime history of childhood traumatic events and victimization (e.g., bullying). Several studies have shown that the experience of CT predicts psychosis onset among CHR individuals, while the literature on the influence of recent SLEs (e.g., death of a loved one) remains inconclusive. Multiple models have been proposed to explain the link between trauma and psychosis, including the stress-vulnerability and stress-sensitivity hypotheses, with emphases on both cognitive processes and neurobiological mechanisms (e.g., the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis). Despite the preponderance of CHR individuals who endorse either CT or SLEs, no clinical trials have been conducted evaluating interventions for trauma in CHR youth to date. Furthermore, the current process of formal identification and assessment of trauma, SLEs, and their impact on CHR youth is inconsistent in research and clinical practice. Recommendations for improving trauma assessment, treatment, and future research directions in the CHR field are provided.

The Clinical High-Risk State for Psychosis (CHR-P), Version II

The Clinical High-Risk state for psychosis (CHR-P) paradigm was introduced about 2 decades ago. Over this period of time accumulating knowledge has been gained. Conceptual advancements involve new knowledge into risk enrichment and the impact of recruitment strategies, specificity for prediction of psychotic and nonpsychotic mental disorders and heterogeneity of psychosis risk among the different CHR-P subgroups. The current special issue advances current knowledge on deconstructing the CHR-P paradigm across its 3 subgroups: genetic risk, attenuated psychotic symptoms, and short-lived and remitting psychotic episodes. A conceptual revision of the paradigm (Version II) is suggested and supported by 3 original studies published in this special issue.

Deconstructing Vulnerability for Psychosis: Meta-Analysis of Environmental Risk Factors for Psychosis in Subjects at Ultra High-Risk

Background

Subjects at ultra high-risk (UHR) for psychosis have an enhanced vulnerability to develop the disorder but the risk factors accounting for this accrued risk are undetermined.

Method

Systematic review of associations between genetic or environmental risk factors for psychosis that are widely established in the literature and UHR state, based on comparisons to controls.

Results

Forty-four studies encompassing 170 independent datasets and 54 risk factors were included. There were no studies on association between genetic or epigenetic risk factors and the UHR state that met the inclusion criteria. UHR subjects were more likely to show obstetric complications, tobacco use, physical inactivity, childhood trauma/emotional abuse/physical neglect, high perceived stress, childhood and adolescent low functioning, affective comorbidities, male gender, single status, unemployment and low educational level as compared to controls.

Conclusions

The increased vulnerability of UHR subjects can be related to environmental risk factors like childhood trauma, adverse life events and affective dysfunction. The role of genetic and epigenetic risk factors awaits clarification.