Individualized risk components guiding antipsychotic delivery in patients with a clinical high risk of psychosis: application of a risk calculator

Antipsychotic prescription, assumption and conversion to psychosis: resolving missing clinical links to optimize prevention through precision

The current concept of clinical high-risk(CHR) of psychosis relies heavily on “below-threshold” (i.e. attenuated or limited and intermittent) psychotic positive phenomena as predictors of the risk for future progression to “above-threshold” positive symptoms (aka “transition” or “conversion”). Positive symptoms, even at attenuated levels are often treated with antipsychotics (AP) to achieve clinical stabilization and mitigate the psychopathological severity. The goal of this study is to contextually examine clinicians’ decision to prescribe AP, CHR individuals’ decision to take AP and psychosis conversion risk in relation to prodromal symptoms profiles. CHR individuals (n = 600) were recruited and followed up for 2 years between 2016 and 2021. CHR individuals were referred to the participating the naturalistic follow-up study, which research procedure was independent of the routine clinical treatment. Clinical factors from the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS) and global assessment of function (GAF) were profiled via exploratory factor analysis (EFA), then the extracted factor structure was used to investigate the relationship of prodromal psychopathology with clinicians’ decisions to AP-prescription, CHR individuals’ decisions to AP-taking and conversion to psychosis. A total of 427(71.2%) CHR individuals were prescribed AP at baseline, 532(88.7%) completed the 2-year follow-up, 377(377/532, 70.9%) were taken AP at least for 2 weeks during the follow-up. EFA identified six factors (Factor-1-Negative symptoms, Factor-2-Global functions, Factor-3-Disorganized communication & behavior, Factor-4-General symptoms, Factor-5-Odd thoughts, and Factor-6-Distorted cognition & perception). Positive symptoms (Factor-5 and 6) and global functions (Factor-2) factors were significant predictors for clinicians’ decisions to AP-prescription and CHR individuals’ decisions to assume AP, whereas negative symptoms (Factor-1) and global functions (Factor-2) factors predicted conversion. While decisions to AP-prescription, decisions to AP-taking were associated to the same factors (positive symptoms and global functions), only one of those was predictive of conversion, i.e. global functions. The other predictor of conversion, i.e. negative symptoms, did not seem to be contemplated both on the clinician and patients’ sides. Overall, the findings indicated that a realignment in the understanding of AP usage is warranted.