Dilemmas in the treatment of early-onset first-episode psychosis

Identification and treatment of individuals with childhood-onset and early-onset schizophrenia

Approximately 8 % of patients with schizophrenia are diagnosed before age 18, and 18 % experience their first symptoms before age 18. This narrative review explores the management of patients with early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) and childhood-onset schizophrenia (COS) from diagnosis to their transition to adult care settings. Early diagnosis of schizophrenia in children and adolescents is essential for improving outcomes, but delays are common due to overlapping of symptoms with developmental phenomena and other psychiatric conditions, including substance use, and lack of clinicians' awareness. Once diagnosed, antipsychotic treatment is key, with specific second-generation agents generally being preferred due to better tolerability and their broader efficacy evidence-base in youth. Dosing should be carefully individualized, considering age-related differences in drug metabolism and side effect liability. Clinicians must be vigilant in detecting early non-response and consider switching or dose escalation when appropriate. Since early age of illness onset is a consistent risk factor for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), clinicians need to be competent in diagnosing TRS and using clozapine. Since COS and EOS are associated with cognitive deficits and impaired functioning, psychosocial interventions should be considered to improve overall functioning and quality of life. Good long-term outcomes depend on continuous treatment engagement, and successful transitioning from pediatric to adult care requires careful planning, early preparation, and collaboration between pediatric and adult clinicians. Targeting functional outcomes and quality of life in addition to symptom remission can improve overall patient well-being. Comprehensive evaluations, age-specific assessments, and targeted interventions are needed to address the unique challenges of EOS and COS.

Psychotic symptoms with and without a primary psychotic disorder in children requiring inpatient mental health admission

Psychotic symptoms are relatively common in children and adolescents attending mental health services. On most occasions, their presence is not associated with a primary psychotic disorder, and their clinical significance remains understudied. No studies to date have evaluated the prevalence and clinical correlates of psychotic symptoms in children requiring inpatient mental health treatment. All children aged 6 to 12 years admitted to an inpatient children's unit over a 9-year period were included in this naturalistic study. Diagnosis at discharge, length of admission, functional impairment, and medication use were recorded. Children with psychotic symptoms without a childhood-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorder (COSS) were compared with children with COSS and children without psychotic symptoms using Chi-square and linear regressions. A total of 211 children were admitted during this period with 62.4% experiencing psychotic symptoms. The most common diagnosis in the sample was autism spectrum disorder (53.1%). Psychotic symptoms were not more prevalent in any diagnosis except for COSS (100%) and intellectual disability (81.8%). Psychotic symptoms were associated with longer admissions and antipsychotic medication use. The mean length of admission of children with psychotic symptoms without COSS seems to lie in between that of children without psychotic symptoms and that of children with COSS. We concluded that psychotic symptoms in children admitted to the hospital may be a marker of severity. Screening for such symptoms may have implications for treatment and could potentially contribute to identifying more effective targeted interventions and reducing overall morbidity.

Treatment Approaches for First Episode and Early-Phase Schizophrenia in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Delphi Consensus Report from Europe

PURPOSE

Although first-episode psychosis (FEP) in youth, particularly early-onset schizophrenia (EOS), is managed similarly to adult-onset schizophrenia, few antipsychotics are approved for people aged 13-18 years. We aimed to explore areas of uncertainty in EOS management and provide evidence-based recommendations to mental health specialists. We used the Delphi methodology to gain knowledge in areas lacking evidence-based strategies. This standardized methodology consists of the development of a questionnaire by content experts, which is then submitted to a broader panel of professionals (panelists) to survey their level of agreement on the topics proposed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The developed questionnaire covered patient management from diagnosis to maintenance treatment and was administered to a broader panel of specialists across Europe. Based on an analysis of responses received in this first round, the items that needed further insight were submitted to the panel for a second round and then reanalysed.

RESULTS

An initial set of 90 items was developed; in round I, consensus was reached for 83/90 items (92%), while it was reached for 7/11 (64%) of the items sent out for rerating in round II. Feedback for rounds I and II was obtained from 54/92 and 48/54 approached experts, respectively. There was broad agreement on diagnostic standards, multimodal approaches and focus on adverse events, but uncertainty in terms of pharmacological strategies (including clozapine) in case of failure and antipsychotic dosing in younger patients.

CONCLUSION

Despite knowledge about diagnostic clues and integrated management of EOS, this study highlights the lack of standardization in treating EOS, with safety arguments having a major role in the decision-making process. Targeted clinical trials and systematic dissemination across Europe of current scientific evidence on the value of early intervention services is hoped to contribute to standardized and improved quality care for patients with early-phase psychosis and schizophrenia.

Functional outcomes and patient satisfaction following inpatient treatment for childhood-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders vs non-psychotic disorders in children in the United Kingdom

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes between children with Childhood-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders (COSS) and children with other severe non-psychotic psychiatric conditions (non-COSS), all admitted to a national mental health inpatient children's unit.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all children discharged from a national children's inpatient unit in the United Kingdom, between 2009 and 2018. We compared functional and treatment outcomes and satisfaction with treatment in COSS with non-COSS in the whole sample and separately for male and female patients.

RESULTS

A total of 211 children (55% boys) were included in the sample. The mean age on admission was 129.7 months (10.8 years; age range, 6-12).Twenty cases were diagnosed with COSS (9.5%). In the whole sample, COSS patients had significantly lower Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) scores on admission compared to non-COSS (P = .006). There was a trend towards children with COSS as a group having a longer admission (M = 194.6 days, SD = 125.4) compared to non-COSS (M = 135.8 days, SD = 86.2), (P = .053). Females with COSS seemed to have more significant differences compared to females with non-COSS, in particular, longer admissions (P = .016) and worse CGAS scores at discharge (P = .04), whilst in males, these differences seemed to be attenuated.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with COSS have lower functioning at the point of inpatient admission and possibly longer admissions, but similar satisfaction with treatment at discharge from hospital compared with non-COSS. Females with COSS may have worse functional outcomes compared to non-COSS at discharge.

Cariprazine Use in Early Psychosis: Three Case Reports

Objective: Cariprazine is a new atypical antipsychotic approved for the acute and maintenance treatment of schizophrenia (1, 2) and for the treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder (1). Recently, cariprazine also got extended FDA-approval for the treatment of depressive episodes in adults with bipolar I disorder (3). The use of low doses of atypical antipsychotics is an essential component of early intervention in psychosis. For its particular performance and tolerability, cariprazine is becoming an important option for the treatment of first-episode psychosis. Method: Three patients experiencing first-episode psychosis (FEP) were successfully treated with cariprazine. Two patients were in their first months of the disease, and the third patient was in his third year after the FEP. Results: The three patients had a diagnosis of non-affective FEP, which includes schizophrenia, delusional disorder, and schizoaffective disorder. One of them was in their third year after the FEP with a predominance of negative symptoms at this stage of the disorder. All the patients were treated with cariprazine with a target dose of 3-4.5 mg/day. The three patients showed improvements in their psychosis, including a decrease in negative symptoms. No significant side effects were reported. Conclusion: Our three case reports indicate that cariprazine is an atypical antipsychotic beneficial in the treatment of early psychosis. Treatment with low doses of cariprazine could be effective and tolerable in this phase of the disorder. Future studies with longer follow-up of FEP patients are recommended to confirm these positive results of cariprazine in the early phases of psychosis.

Psychological intervention, antipsychotic medication or a combined treatment for adolescents with a first episode of psychosis: the MAPS feasibility three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

When psychosis emerges in young people there is a risk of poorer outcomes, and access to evidence-based treatments is paramount. The current evidence base is limited. Antipsychotic medications show only a small benefit over placebo, but young people experience more side effects than adults. There is sparse evidence for psychological intervention. Research is needed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological intervention versus antipsychotic medication versus a combined treatment for adolescents with psychosis.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS) was to determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial to answer the question of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these three treatment options.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, randomised, open-blinded, evaluation feasibility trial with a single blind. Participants were allocated 1 : 1 : 1 to receive antipsychotic medication, psychological intervention or a combination of both. A thematic qualitative study explored the acceptability and feasibility of the trial.

SETTING

Early intervention in psychosis services and child and adolescent mental health services in Manchester, Oxford, Lancashire, Sussex, Birmingham, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Northumberland, Tyne and Wear.

PARTICIPANTS

People aged 14-18 years experiencing a first episode of psychosis either with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis or meeting the entry criteria for early intervention in psychosis who had not received antipsychotic medication or psychological intervention within the last 3 months.

INTERVENTIONS

Psychological intervention involved up to 26 hours of cognitive-behavioural therapy and six family intervention sessions over 6 months, with up to four booster sessions. Antipsychotic medication was prescribed by the participant's psychiatrist in line with usual practice. Combined treatment was a combination of psychological intervention and antipsychotic medication.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was feasibility (recruitment, treatment adherence and retention). We used a three-stage progression criterion to determine feasibility. Secondary outcomes were psychosis symptoms, recovery, anxiety and depression, social and educational/occupational functioning, drug and alcohol use, health economics, adverse/metabolic side effects and adverse/serious adverse events.

RESULTS

We recruited 61 out of 90 (67.8%; amber zone) potential participants (psychological intervention, n = 18; antipsychotic medication, n = 22; combined treatment, n = 21). Retention to follow-up was 51 out of 61 participants (83.6%; green zone). In the psychological intervention arm and the combined treatment arm, 32 out of 39 (82.1%) participants received six or more sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy (green zone). In the combined treatment arm and the antipsychotic medication arm, 28 out of 43 (65.1%) participants received antipsychotic medication for 6 consecutive weeks (amber zone). There were no serious adverse events related to the trial and one related adverse event. Overall, the number of completed secondary outcome measures, including health economics, was small.

LIMITATIONS

Medication adherence was determined by clinician report, which can be biased. The response to secondary outcomes was low, including health economics. The small sample size obtained means that the study lacked statistical power and there will be considerable uncertainty regarding estimates of treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to conduct a trial comparing psychological intervention with antipsychotic medication and a combination treatment in young people with psychosis with some adaptations to the design, including adaptations to collection of health economic data to determine cost-effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

An adequately powered definitive trial is required to provide robust evidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80567433.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The psychometrics of psychosis - assessing and rating perceptual and ideational disturbance in adolescents

BACKGROUND

The early recognition and management of psychosis spectrum disorders is associated with superior outcomes in affected individuals. However, this can be challenging for numerous reasons. This article provides perspectives on the effective evaluation and rating of potentially psychotic phenomena young people. We compare and contrast two widely used instruments that can support this process.

FINDINGS

The Comprehensive Assessment for At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS) is used to explore potentially psychotic experiences in young people perceived to be at risk of an emerging or imminent psychosis. There is evidence to support its reliability and, to some extent, the predictive validity of the resultant scores. However, relatively low short-medium transition rates to psychosis in 'positive' cases suggest that its use as a screening instrument should be restricted to groups who show some indication of impending risk (e.g. help-seeking, distress, declining functioning, perceptual disturbance, etc.). In contrast, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) is calibrated to rate symptoms in those with an established psychosis, especially those with a diagnosis related to the schizophrenia spectrum. Consequently, the PANSS is useful for evaluating the clinical course and outcomes of psychotic illness.

CONCLUSIONS

Although neither instrument is designed specifically for use in those under 18, with care they can be used to effectively support the management of adolescents reporting perceptual and ideational disturbance. However, it is important that any instrument ratings are placed meaningfully in the context of the overall clinical picture and all available information.