Real-World Clinical Outcomes Two Years After Transition to Psychosis in Individuals at Clinical High Risk: Electronic Health Record Cohort Study

Predicting bipolar disorder I/II in individuals at clinical high-risk: Results from a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

No systematic review has estimated the consistency and the magnitude of the risk of developing bipolar disorder I-II (BD-I/II) in individuals at clinical high risk for bipolar disorder (CHR-BD).

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched until April 2022 in this pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42022346515) PRISMA-compliant systematic review to identify longitudinal studies in individuals meeting pre-defined CHR-BD criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and results were systematically synthesized around CHR-BD criteria across follow-up periods and different subgroups.

RESULTS

Altogether, 13 studies were included reporting on nine prospective independent cohorts (n = 678 individuals at CHR-BD). The mean age of participants was 15.7 years (range 10.1-22.6 years), and 54.2 % were females. The most common CHR-BD subgroup was subthreshold mania (55.5 %), followed by BD-Not Otherwise Specified (BD-NOS: 33.3 %). Development of BD I/II ranged from 7.1 % to 23.4 % after 2 years. Development of BD-I ranged from 3.4 % at 4 years to 23 % at 8 years. Development of BD-II ranged from 10 % at 2 years to 63.8 % at 4 years. The risk of developing BD-I appeared highest in those meeting BD-NOS criteria (23 % at eight years). Predictors of development of BD were identified but remained mostly unreplicated. The quality of the included studies was moderate (NOS = 5.2 ± 1.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Emerging data from research studies point towards the promising utility of CHR-BD criteria. These studies may pave the way to the next generation of research, implementing detection, prognostication, and preventive interventions in individuals at CHR-BD identified and followed in clinical practice.

Clinical outcomes in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis who do not transition to psychosis: a meta-analysis

AIMS

The clinical outcomes of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR-P) who do not transition to psychosis are heterogeneous and inconsistently reported. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate longitudinally a wide range of outcomes in CHR-P individuals not developing psychosis.

METHODS

"Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" and "Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology"-compliant meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42021229212) searching original CHR-P longitudinal studies in PubMed and Web of Science databases up to 01/11/2021. As primary analysis, we evaluated the following outcomes within CHR-P non-transitioning individuals: (a) change in the severity of attenuated psychotic symptoms (Hedge's g); (b) change in the severity of negative psychotic symptoms (Hedge's g); (c) change in the severity of depressive symptoms (Hedge's g); (d) change in the level of functioning (Hedge's g); (e) frequency of remission (at follow-up). As a secondary analysis, we compared these outcomes in those CHR-P individuals who did not transition vs. those who did transition to psychosis at follow-up. We conducted random-effects model meta-analyses, sensitivity analyses, heterogeneity analyses, meta-regressions and publication bias assessment. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included (2756 CHR-P individuals, mean age = 20.4, 45.5% females). The mean duration of follow-up of the included studies was of 30.7 months. Primary analysis: attenuated psychotic symptoms [Hedges' g = 1.410, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.002-1.818]; negative psychotic symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.683, 95% CI 0.371-0.995); depressive symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.844, 95% CI 0.371-1.317); and functioning (Hedges' g = 0.776, 95% CI 0.463-1.089) improved in CHR-P non-transitioning individuals; 48.7% remitted at follow-up (95% CI 39.3-58.2%). Secondary analysis: attenuated psychotic symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.706, 95% CI 0.091-1.322) and functioning (Hedges' g = 0.623, 95% CI 0.375-0.871) improved in CHR-P individuals not-transitioning compared to those transitioning to psychosis, but there were no differences in negative or depressive symptoms or frequency of remission (p > 0.05). Older age was associated with higher improvements of attenuated psychotic symptoms (β = 0.225, p = 0.012); publication years were associated with a higher improvement of functioning (β = -0.124, p = 0.0026); a lower proportion of Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms was associated with higher frequencies of remission (β = -0.054, p = 0.0085). There was no metaregression impact for study continent, the psychometric instrument used, the quality of the study or proportion of females. The NOS scores were 4.4 ± 0.9, ranging from 3 to 6, revealing the moderate quality of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes improve in CHR-P individuals not transitioning to psychosis but only less than half remit over time. Sustained clinical attention should be provided in the longer term to monitor these outcomes.

Timing of antipsychotics and benzodiazepine initiation during a first episode of psychosis impacts clinical outcomes: Electronic health record cohort study

The impact of timing of antipsychotics and benzodiazepine treatment during a first episode of psychosis on clinical outcomes is unknown. We present a RECORD-compliant electronic health record cohort study including patients (n = 4,483, aged 14-35) with a primary diagnosis of any non-organic ICD-10 first episode of psychosis at SLAM-NHS between 2007 and 2017. The impact of antipsychotic timing (prescription > 1 week after a first episode of psychosis) was assessed on the primary outcome (risk of any psychiatric inpatient admission over 6 years), and secondary outcomes (cumulative duration of any psychiatric/medical/accident/emergency [A&E] admission over 6 years). The impact of prescribing benzodiazepine before antipsychotic at any point and of treatment patterns (antipsychotic alone, benzodiazepine alone, combination of antipsychotic with benzodiazepine) within the first week after a first episode of psychosis were also assessed. Survival analyses and zero-inflated negative binomial regressions, adjusted for core covariates, and complementary analyses were employed. Antipsychotic prescribed >1 week after a first episode of psychosis did not affect the risk of any psychiatric admission (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.92-1.17, p = 0.557), but increased the duration of any psychiatric (22-28%), medical (78-35%) and A&E (30-34%) admission (months 12-72). Prescribing benzodiazepine before antipsychotic at any point did not affect the risk of any psychiatric admission (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.94-1.13, p = 0.535), but reduced the duration of any psychiatric admission (17-24%, months 12-72), and increased the duration of medical (71-45%, months 12-72) and A&E (26-18%, months 12-36) admission. Prescribing antipsychotic combined with benzodiazepine within the first week after a first episode of psychosis showed better overall clinical outcomes than antipsychotic or benzodiazepine alone. Overall, delaying antipsychotic 1 week after a first episode of psychosis may worsen some clinical outcomes. Early benzodiazepine treatment can be considered with concomitant antipsychotic but not as standalone intervention.

Probability of Transition to Psychosis in Individuals at Clinical High Risk: An Updated Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Estimating the current likelihood of transitioning from a clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) to psychosis holds paramount importance for preventive care and applied research.

OBJECTIVE

To quantitatively examine the consistency and magnitude of transition risk to psychosis in individuals at CHR-P.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Web of Science databases until November 1, 2020. Manual search of references from previous articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Longitudinal studies reporting transition risks in individuals at CHR-P.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Meta-analysis compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines; independent data extraction, manually and through digitalization of Kaplan-Meier curves.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Primary effect size was cumulative risk of transition to psychosis at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, and more than 4 years' follow-up, estimated using the numbers of individuals at CHR-P transitioning to psychosis at each time point. These analyses were complemented by meta-analytical Kaplan-Meier curves and speed of transition to psychosis (hazard rate). Random-effects meta-analysis, between-study heterogeneity analysis, study quality assessment, and meta-regressions were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 130 studies and 9222 individuals at CHR-P were included. The mean (SD) age was 20.3 (4.4) years, and 5100 individuals (55.3%) were male. The cumulative transition risk was 0.09 (95% CI, 0.07-0.10; k = 37; n = 6485) at 0.5 years, 0.15 (95% CI, 0.13-0.16; k = 53; n = 7907) at 1 year, 0.20 (95% CI, 0.17-0.22; k = 30; n = 5488) at 1.5 years, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.17-0.22; k = 44; n = 7351) at 2 years, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.21-0.29; k = 19; n = 3114) at 2.5 years, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.22-0.29; k = 29; n = 4029) at 3 years, 0.27 (95% CI, 0.23-0.30; k = 16; n = 2926) at 4 years, and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.20-0.37; k = 14; n = 2301) at more than 4 years. The cumulative Kaplan-Meier transition risk was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.08-0.09; n = 4860) at 0.5 years, 0.14 (95% CI, 0.13-0.15; n = 3408) at 1 year, 0.17 (95% CI, 0.16-0.19; n = 2892) at 1.5 years, 0.20 (95% CI, 0.19-0.21; n = 2357) at 2 years, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.23-0.26; n = 1444) at 2.5 years, 0.27 (95% CI, 0.25-0.28; n = 1029) at 3 years, 0.28 (95% CI, 0.26-0.29; n = 808) at 3.5 years, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.27-0.30; n = 737) at 4 years, and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.32-0.38; n = 114) at 10 years. The hazard rate only plateaued at 4 years' follow-up. Meta-regressions showed that a lower proportion of female individuals (β = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.01) and a higher proportion of brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms (β = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.03) were associated with an increase in transition risk. Heterogeneity across the studies was high (I2 range, 77.91% to 95.73%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis, 25% of individuals at CHR-P developed psychosis within 3 years. Transition risk continued increasing in the long term. Extended clinical monitoring and preventive care may be beneficial in this patient population.

Transition to psychosis in randomized clinical trials of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis compared to observational cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR-P) recruited in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohorts may display a different enrichment and hence risk of transition to psychosis. No meta-analysis has ever addressed this issue.

METHODS

"Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) and "Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology" (MOOSE)-compliant meta-analysis. PubMed and Web of Science were searched until November 2020 (PROSPERO:CRD42021229223). We included nonoverlapping longitudinal studies (RCTs-control condition and observational cohorts) reporting the transition to psychosis in CHR-P individuals. The primary effect size measure was the cumulative risk of transition at 0.5, 1, and 2 years follow-up in RCTs compared to observational cohorts. Random effects meta-analyses, heterogeneity assessment, quality assessment, and meta-regressions were conducted.

RESULTS

Ninety-four independent studies (24 RCTs, 70 observational cohorts) and 9,243 individuals (mean age = 20.1 ± 3.0 years; 43.7% females) were included. The meta-analytical risk of transitioning to psychosis from a CHR-P stage was 0.091 (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.068-0.121) at 0.5 years, 0.140 (95% CI = 0.101-0.191) at 1 year and 0.165 (95% CI = 0.097-0.267) at 2 years follow-up in RCTs, and 0.081 (95% CI = 0.067-0.099) at 0.5 years, 0.138 (95% CI = 0.114-0.167) at 1 year, and 0.174 (95% CI = 0.156-0.193) at 2 years follow-up in observational cohorts. There were no between-group differences in transition risks (p > 0.05). The proportion of CHR-P individuals with substance use disorders (excluding alcohol and cannabis) was higher in observational cohorts (16.8, 95% CI = 13.3-21.0%) than in RCTs (3.4, 95% CI = 0.8-12.7%; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no meta-analytic evidence supporting sampling biases in RCTs of CHR-P individuals. Further RCTs are needed to detect effective interventions to prevent psychosis in this at-risk group.

Relations Among Anhedonia, Reinforcement Learning, and Global Functioning in Help-seeking Youth

Dysfunction in the neural circuits underlying salience signaling is implicated in symptoms of psychosis and may predict conversion to a psychotic disorder in youth at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis. Additionally, negative symptom severity, including consummatory and anticipatory aspects of anhedonia, may predict functional outcome in individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. However, it is unclear whether anhedonia is related to the ability to attribute incentive salience to stimuli (through reinforcement learning [RL]) and whether measures of anhedonia and RL predict functional outcome in a younger, help-seeking population. We administered the Salience Attribution Test (SAT) to 33 participants who met criteria for either CHR or a recent-onset psychotic disorder and 29 help-seeking youth with nonpsychotic disorders. In the SAT, participants must identify relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions and be sensitive to different reinforcement probabilities for the 2 levels of the relevant dimension ("adaptive salience"). Adaptive salience attribution was positively related to both consummatory pleasure and functioning in the full sample. Analyses also revealed an indirect effect of adaptive salience on the relation between consummatory pleasure and both role (αβ = .22, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.48) and social functioning (αβ = .14, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.30). These findings suggest a distinct pathway to poor global functioning in help-seeking youth, via impaired reward sensitivity and RL.

Preventive psychiatry: a blueprint for improving the mental health of young people

Preventive approaches have latterly gained traction for improving mental health in young people. In this paper, we first appraise the conceptual foundations of preventive psychiatry, encompassing the public health, Gordon's, US Institute of Medicine, World Health Organization, and good mental health frameworks, and neurodevelopmentally-sensitive clinical staging models. We then review the evidence supporting primary prevention of psychotic, bipolar and common mental disorders and promotion of good mental health as potential transformative strategies to reduce the incidence of these disorders in young people. Within indicated approaches, the clinical high-risk for psychosis paradigm has received the most empirical validation, while clinical high-risk states for bipolar and common mental disorders are increasingly becoming a focus of attention. Selective approaches have mostly targeted familial vulnerability and non-genetic risk exposures. Selective screening and psychological/psychoeducational interventions in vulnerable subgroups may improve anxiety/depressive symptoms, but their efficacy in reducing the incidence of psychotic/bipolar/common mental disorders is unproven. Selective physical exercise may reduce the incidence of anxiety disorders. Universal psychological/psychoeducational interventions may improve anxiety symptoms but not prevent depressive/anxiety disorders, while universal physical exercise may reduce the incidence of anxiety disorders. Universal public health approaches targeting school climate or social determinants (demographic, economic, neighbourhood, environmental, social/cultural) of mental disorders hold the greatest potential for reducing the risk profile of the population as a whole. The approach to promotion of good mental health is currently fragmented. We leverage the knowledge gained from the review to develop a blueprint for future research and practice of preventive psychiatry in young people: integrating universal and targeted frameworks; advancing multivariable, transdiagnostic, multi-endpoint epidemiological knowledge; synergically preventing common and infrequent mental disorders; preventing physical and mental health burden together; implementing stratified/personalized prognosis; establishing evidence-based preventive interventions; developing an ethical framework, improving prevention through education/training; consolidating the cost-effectiveness of preventive psychiatry; and decreasing inequalities. These goals can only be achieved through an urgent individual, societal, and global level response, which promotes a vigorous collaboration across scientific, health care, societal and governmental sectors for implementing preventive psychiatry, as much is at stake for young people with or at risk for emerging mental disorders.

When to initiate antipsychotic treatment for psychotic symptoms: At the premorbid phase or first episode of psychosis?

OBJECTIVE

Antipsychotic drugs are widely used for treating patients with first episode of psychosis, targeting threshold psychotic symptoms. The clinical high risk of psychosis is characterized as subthreshold psychotic symptoms and it is unclear whether they can also benefit from antipsychotic drugs treatment. This study attempted to determine whether initiating antipsychotic drugs treatment in the clinical high risk of psychosis phase was superior to initiating antipsychotic drugs treatment in the first episode of psychosis phase, after the 2-year symptomatic and functional outcomes.

METHOD

Drawing on 517 individuals with clinical high risk of psychosis from the ShangHai At Risk for Psychosis program, we identified 105 patients who converted to first episode of psychosis within the following 2 years. Patients who initiated antipsychotic drugs while at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR_AP; n = 70) were compared with those who initiated antipsychotic drugs during a first episode of psychosis (FEP_AP; n = 35). Summary scores on positive symptoms and the global function scores at baseline and at 2 months, 1 year and 2 years of follow-up were analyzed to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

The CHR_AP and FEP_AP groups were not different in the severity of positive symptoms and functioning at baseline. However, the CHR_AP group exhibited significantly more serious negative symptoms and total symptoms than the FEP_AP group. Both groups exhibited a significant reduction in positive symptoms and function (p < 0.001). Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed group by time interaction for symptomatic (F = 3.196, df = 3, p = 0.024) and functional scores (F = 7.306, df = 3, p < 0.001). The FEP_AP group showed higher remission rates than the CHR_AP group (χ² = 22.270, p < 0.001). Compared to initiating antipsychotic drug treatments in the clinical high risk of psychosis state, initiating antipsychotic drugs treatments in the first episode of psychosis state predicted remission in a regression model for FEP_AP (odds ratio = 5.567, 95% confidence interval = [1.783, 17.383], p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

For clinical high risk of psychosis, antipsychotic drugs might be not the first choice in terms of long-term remission, which is more reasonable to use at the first episode of psychosis phase.

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

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotics are widely used for treating patients with psychosis, and target threshold psychotic symptoms. Individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis are characterized by subthreshold psychotic symptoms. It is currently unclear who might benefit from antipsychotic treatment. Our objective was to apply a risk calculator (RC) to identify people that would benefit from antipsychotics.

METHODS

Drawing on 400 CHR individuals recruited between 2011 and 2016, 208 individuals who received antipsychotic treatment were included. Clinical and cognitive variables were entered into an individualized RC for psychosis; personal risk was estimated and 4 risk components (negative symptoms-RC-NS, general function-RC-GF, cognitive performance-RC-CP, and positive symptoms-RC-PS) were constructed. The sample was further stratified according to the risk level. Higher risk was defined based on the estimated risk score (20% or higher).

RESULTS

In total, 208 CHR individuals received daily antipsychotic treatment of an olanzapine-equivalent dose of 8.7 mg with a mean administration duration of 58.4 weeks. Of these, 39 (18.8%) developed psychosis within 2 years. A new index of factors ratio (FR), which was derived from the ratio of RC-PS plus RC-GF to RC-NS plus RC-CP, was generated. In the higher-risk group, as FR increased, the conversion rate decreased. A small group (15%) of CHR individuals at higher-risk and an FR >1 benefitted from the antipsychotic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Through applying a personal risk assessment, the administration of antipsychotics should be limited to CHR individuals with predominantly positive symptoms and related function decline. A strict antipsychotic prescription strategy should be introduced to reduce inappropriate use.

Translational Application of a Neuro-Scientific Multi-Modal Approach Into Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation: Why and How?

A prominent body of literature indicates that insanity evaluations, which are intended to provide influential expert reports for judges to reach a decision "beyond any reasonable doubt," suffer from a low inter-rater reliability. This paper reviews the limitations of the classical approach to insanity evaluation and the criticisms to the introduction of neuro-scientific approach in court. Here, we explain why in our opinion these criticisms, that seriously hamper the translational implementation of neuroscience into the forensic setting, do not survive scientific scrutiny. Moreover, we discuss how the neuro-scientific multimodal approach may improve the inter-rater reliability in insanity evaluation. Critically, neuroscience does not aim to introduce a brain-based concept of insanity. Indeed, criteria for responsibility and insanity are and should remain clinical. Rather, following the falsificationist approach and the convergence of evidence principle, the neuro-scientific multimodal approach is being proposed as a way to improve reliability of insanity evaluation and to mitigate the influence of cognitive biases on the formulation of insanity opinions, with the final aim to reduce errors and controversies.

The case for improved transdiagnostic detection of first-episode psychosis: Electronic health record cohort study

BACKGROUND

Improving outcomes of a First Episode of Psychosis (FEP) relies on the ability to detect most individuals with emerging psychosis and treat them in specialised Early Intervention (EI) services. Efficacy of current detection strategies is undetermined.

METHODS

RECORD-compliant clinical, 6-year, retrospective, transdiagnostic, lifespan-inclusive, Electronic Health Record (EHR) cohort study, representing real-world secondary mental healthcare in South London and Maudsley (SLaM) NHS. All individuals accessing SLaM in the period 2007-2017 and receiving any ICD-10 diagnosis other than persistent psychosis were included. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier curves, logistic regression, epidemiological incidence of psychosis in the general population were used to address pathways to care and detection power of EI services for FEP.

RESULTS

A total of 106,706 individuals underwent the 6-year follow-up: they were mostly single (72.57%) males (50.51%) of white ethnicity (60.01%), aged on average 32.96 years, with an average Health Of the Nation Outcome Scale score of 11.12 and mostly affected with F40-48 Neurotic/stress-related/somatoform disorders (27.46%). Their transdiagnostic risk of developing a FEP cumulated to 0.072 (95%CI 0.067-0.077) at 6 years. Those individuals who developed a FEP (n = 1841) entered healthcare mostly (79.02%) through inpatient mental health services (29.76%), community mental health services (29.54%) or accident and emergency departments (19.50%); at the time of FEP onset, most of them (46.43%) were under the acute care pathway. Individuals contacting accident and emergency departments had an increased risk of FEP (OR 2.301, 95%CI 2.095-2.534, P < 0.001). The proportion of SLaM FEP cases that were eligible and under the care of EI services was 0.456 at any time. The epidemiological proportion of FEP cases in the sociodemographically-matched general population that was detected by EI service was 0.373.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of individuals who develop a FEP remain undetected by current pathways to care and EI services. Improving detection strategies should become a mainstream area in the future generation of early psychosis research.