Clinical High Risk for Psychosis-Not Seeing the Trees for the Wood

Baseline data of a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (STEP study)

AIM

Research has shown that preventative intervention in individuals at ultra-high risk of psychosis (UHR) improves symptomatic and functional outcomes. The staged treatment in early psychosis (STEP) trial aims to determine the most effective type, timing and sequence of interventions in the UHR population by sequentially studying the effectiveness of (1) support and problem solving, (2) cognitive-behavioural case management and (3) antidepressant medication with an embedded fast-fail option of (4) omega-3 fatty acids or low-dose antipsychotic medication. This paper presents the recruitment flow and baseline clinical characteristics of the sample.

METHODS

STEP is a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial. We present the baseline demographics, clinical characteristics and acceptability and feasibility of this treatment approach as indicated by the flow of participants from first contact up until enrolment into the trial. Recruitment took place between April 2016 and January 2019.

RESULTS

Of 1343, help-seeking young people who were considered for participation, 402 participants were not eligible and 599 declined/disengaged, resulting in a total of 342 participants enrolled in the study. The most common reason for exclusion was an active prescription of antidepressant medication. Eighty-five percent of the enrolled sample had a non-psychotic DSM-5 diagnosis and symptomatic/functional measures showed a moderate level of clinical severity and functional impairment.

DISCUSSION

The present study demonstrates the acceptability and participant's general positive appraisal of sequential treatment. It also shows, in line with other trials in UHR individuals, a significant level of psychiatric morbidity and impairment, demonstrating the clear need for care in this group and that treatment is appropriate.

Preventive interventions for individuals at ultra high risk for psychosis: An updated and extended meta-analysis

Intervention at the earliest illness stage, in ultra or clinical high-risk individuals, or indicated prevention, currently represents the most promising strategy to ameliorate, delay or prevent psychosis. We review the current state of evidence and conduct a broad-spectrum meta-analysis of various outcomes: transition to psychosis, attenuated positive and negative psychotic symptoms, mania, depression, anxiety, general psychopathology, symptom-related distress, functioning, quality of life, and treatment acceptability. 26 randomized controlled trials were included. Meta-analytically pooled interventions reduced transition rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.57, 95%CI 0.41-0.81) and attenuated positive psychotic symptoms at 12-months (standardized mean difference = -0.15, 95%CI = -0.28--0.01). When stratified by intervention type (pharmacological, psychological), only the pooled effect of psychological interventions on transition rate was significant. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was associated with a reduction in incidence at 12-months (RR = 0.52, 95%CI = 0.33-0.82) and 18-48-months (RR = 0.60, 95%CI = 0.42-0.84), but not 6-months. Findings at 12-months and 18-48-months were robust in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. All other outcomes were non-significant. To date, effects of trialed treatments are specific to transition and, a lesser extent, attenuated positive symptoms, highlighting the future need to target other symptom domains and functional outcomes. Sound evidence supports CBT in reducing transition and the value of intervening at this illness stage. STUDY REGISTRATION: Research Registry ID: reviewregistry907.

Schizophrenia and the Environment: Within-Person Analyses May be Required to Yield Evidence of Unconfounded and Causal Association-The Example of Cannabis and Psychosis

Hypotheses about the link between cannabis use and psychosis apply to the within-person level but have been tested mostly at the between-person level. We used a within-person design, in which a person serves as his own control, thus removing the need to consider confounding by any fixed (genetic and nongenetic) characteristic to study the prospective association between cannabis use and the incidence of attenuated psychotic experiences, and vice versa, adjusted for time-varying confounders. We combined 2 general population cohorts (at baseline: Early Developmental Stages of Psychopathology Study, n = 1395; Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2, n = 6603), which applied a similar methodology to study cannabis use and attenuated psychotic experiences with repeated interviews (T0, T1, T2, and T3) over a period of approximately 10 years. The Hausman test was significant for the adjusted models, indicating the validity of the fixed-effects model. In the adjusted fixed-effects model, prior cannabis use was associated with psychotic experiences (aOR = 7.03, 95% CI: 2.39, 20.69), whereas prior psychotic experiences were not associated with cannabis use (aOR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.21, 1.71). Longitudinal studies applying random-effects models to study associations between risk factors and mental health outcomes, as well as reverse causality, may not yield precise estimates. Cannabis likely impacts causally on psychosis but not the other way round.

Prevention of psychosis: moving on from the at-risk mental state to universal primary prevention

The value of services for those with the 'At Risk Mental State for Psychosis' (ARMS) continues to be disputed. ARMS services have provided a valuable stimulus to academic research into the transition into psychosis. Furthermore, there is currently a welcome trend to transform such clinics into youth mental health services catering for the broader clientele of young people suffering from anxiety and depression, who already constitute the bulk of those seen at ARMS clinics. However, such services are never likely to make major inroads into preventing psychosis because they only reach a small proportion of those at risk. Evidence from medicine shows that avoiding exposure to factors which increase the risk of disease (e.g. poor nutrition, transmission of infection, tobacco smoking), produces greater public benefit than focussing efforts on individuals with, or about to develop, disease. We consider that the most productive approach for psychosis prevention is avoiding exposure to risk-increasing factors. The best-established risk factors for psychosis are obstetric events, childhood abuse, migration, city living, adverse life events and cannabis use. Some as city living, are likely proxies for an unknown causal factor(s) while preventing others such as childhood abuse is currently beyond our powers. The risk factor for psychosis which is most readily open to this approach is the use of cannabis. Therefore, as an initial step towards a strategy for universal primary prevention, we advocate public health campaigns to educate young people about the harms of regular use of high potency cannabis.

Identifying patients at risk of psychosis: a qualitative study of GP views in South West England

Background

Early intervention in people with an at-risk mental state for psychosis can decrease the rates of transition to psychosis. GPs play a key role in the identification of this patient group but very few studies have explored GPs’ awareness of patients who are at risk of psychosis.

Aim

To explore GPs’ views and experiences of identifying patients with an at-risk mental state for psychosis, and the barriers and facilitators to identification.

Design and setting

In-depth semi-structured interviews were held with GPs working in South West England primary care. The interviews were conducted between March and July 2019.

Method

A topic guide was used to ensure consistency across interviews. This guide was revised to incorporate a definition of the at-risk mental state for psychosis, as after conducting a few interviews it became clear that some GPs were not familiar with this construct. Interviews were audiorecorded and analysed thematically.

Results

A total of 20 GPs were interviewed. Some GPs were not familiar with the concept of being at risk of developing psychosis, and perceived that they may not have the right skills to identify this patient group. Other barriers related to patients not presenting or disclosing psychotic symptoms, and limitations imposed by scarce resources on the structure and provision of NHS services, such as lack of continuity of care and high thresholds for accessing specialised services.

Conclusion

Identifying people at risk of psychosis in primary care is difficult. Provision of GP training, development of policies that support continuity of care, and improved access to specialised services could help improve the identification of this patient group.