Search

Background: Early warning signs monitoring by service users with schizophrenia has shown promise in preventing relapse but the quality of evidence is low. We aimed to establish the feasibility of undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of a blended digital intervention for relapse prevention in schizophrenia., Methods: This multicentre, feasibility, cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to compare Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) with treatment as usual in community mental health services (CMHS) in Glasgow and Melbourne. CMHS were the unit of randomisation, selected on the basis of those that probably had five or more care coordinators willing to participate. Participants were eligible if they were older than 16 years, had a schizophrenia or related diagnosis confirmed via case records, were able to provide informed consent, had contact with CMHS, and had had a relapse within the previous 2 years. Participants were randomised within stratified clusters to EMPOWER or to continue their usual approach to care. EMPOWER blended a smartphone for active monitoring of early warning signs with peer support to promote self-management and clinical triage to promote access to relapse prevention. Main outcomes were feasibility, acceptability, usability, and safety, which was assessed through face-to-face interviews. App usage was assessed via the smartphone and self-report. Primary end point was 12 months. Participants, research assistants and other team members involved in delivering the intervention were not masked to treatment conditions. Assessment of relapse was done by an independent adjudication panel masked to randomisation group. The study is registered at ISRCTN (99559262)., Findings: We identified and randomised eight CMHS (six in Glasgow and two in Melbourne) comprising 47 care coordinators. We recruited 86 service users between Jan 19 and Aug 8, 2018; 73 were randomised (42 [58%] to EMPOWER and 31 [42%] to treatment as usual). There were 37 (51%) men and 36 (49%) women. At 12 months, main outcomes were collected for 32 (76%) of service users in the EMPOWER group and 30 (97%) of service users in the treatment as usual group. Of those randomised to EMPOWER, 30 (71%) met our a priori criterion of more than 33% adherence to daily monitoring that assumed feasibility. Median time to discontinuation of these participants was 31·5 weeks (SD 14·5). There were 29 adverse events in the EMPOWER group and 25 adverse events in the treatment as usual group. There were 13 app-related adverse events, affecting 11 people, one of which was serious. Fear of relapse was lower in the EMPOWER group than in the treatment as usual group at 12 months (mean difference -7·53 (95% CI -14·45 to 0·60; Cohen's d -0·53)., Interpretation: A trial of digital technology to monitor early warning signs blended with peer support and clinical triage to detect and prevent relapse appears to be feasible, safe, and acceptable. A further main trial is merited., Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AIG reports personal fees from University of Manchester, personal fees from University of Exeter, personal fees from British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies and other interests with UK National Health Service (NHS) Education for Scotland outside the submitted work. JA, SL, and SB report other interests with CareLoop Health, outside the submitted work. SB reports grants from the Medical Research Council and UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) during the conduct of the study. SL reports grants from the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) during the conduct of the study. JA reports grants from MRC, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, NIHR, and the US National Institute for Health, and was a Fellow of the Alan Turing Institute during the conduct of the study. AB reports personal fees from Bayer, Merck, Janssen, Novartis, Sword Health, Amgen, and Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. JF reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) during the conduct of the study and other interests with Melbourne Health (NorthWestern Mental Health) outside the submitted work. HMcL reports grants from NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) during the conduct of the study, and grants with Academy of Medical Sciences, Glasgow Children's Hospital Charity, and Scotland's Chief Scientist's Office. CM reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) during the conduct of the study. JN reports grants from the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh during the conduct of the study and declares membership of the following NIHR boards: Cardio Pulmonary Resusitation decision making committee; HTA commissioning board; HTA commissioning sub-board (expression of interest); HTA funding boards policy group; HTA general board; HTA post-board funding teleconference; NIHR clinical trials unit standing advisory committee; NIHR HTA and Efficacy Mechanism Evaluation editorial board; pre-exposure prophylaxis impact review panel. PF is a member of the HTA mental health prioritisation panel. CW reports grants from NIHR during the conduct of the study and from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and other interests with Five Areas outside the submitted work. AY reports an NIHR Senior Investigator Grant. JG reports grants from the National Health Medical Research Council. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Most disability produced by psychotic illnesses, especially schizophrenia, develops during the prepsychotic period, creating a case for intervention during this period. However, only recently has it been possible to engage people in treatment during this phase., Methods: A randomized controlled trial compared 2 interventions in 59 patients at incipient risk of progression to first-episode psychosis. We termed this group ultra-high risk to emphasize the enhanced risk vs conventional genetic high-risk studies. Needs-based intervention was compared with specific preventive intervention comprising low-dose risperidone therapy (mean dosage, 1.3 mg/d) and cognitive behavior therapy. Treatment was provided for 6 months, after which all patients were offered ongoing needs-based intervention. Assessments were performed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months., Results: By the end of treatment, 10 of 28 people who received needs-based intervention progressed to first-episode psychosis vs 3 of 31 from the specific preventive intervention group (P=.03). After 6-month follow-up, another 3 people in the specific preventive intervention group became psychotic, and with intention-to-treat analysis, the difference was no longer significant (P=.24). However, for risperidone therapy-adherent patients in the specific preventive intervention group, protection against progression extended for 6 months after cessation of risperidone use., Conclusions: More specific pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy reduces the risk of early transition to psychosis in young people at ultra-high risk, although their relative contributions could not be determined. This represents at least delay in onset (prevalence reduction), and possibly some reduction in incidence.

Background: In the 1990s criteria were developed to detect individuals at high and imminent risk of developing a psychotic disorder. These are known as the at risk mental state, ultra high risk or clinical high risk criteria. Individuals meeting these criteria are symptomatic and help-seeking. Services for such individuals are now found worldwide. Recently Psychological Medicine published two articles that criticise these services and suggest that they should be dismantled or restructured. One paper also provides recommendations on how ARMS services should be operate. Methods: In this paper we draw on the existing literature in the field and present the perspective of some ARMS clinicians and researchers. Results: Many of the critics' arguments are refuted. Most of the recommendations included in the Moritz et al. paper are already occurring. Conclusions: ARMS services provide management of current problems, treatment to reduce risk of onset of psychotic disorder and monitoring of mental state, including attenuated psychotic symptoms. These symptoms are associated with a range of poor outcomes. It is important to assess them and track their trajectory over time. A new approach to detection of ARMS individuals can be considered that harnesses broad youth mental health services, such as headspace in Australia, Jigsaw in Ireland and ACCESS Open Minds in Canada. Attention should also be paid to the physical health of ARMS individuals. Far from needing to be dismantled we feel that the ARMS approach has much to offer to improve the health of young people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Social and role functioning are compromised for the majority of individuals at ultra-high risk of psychosis, and it is important to identify factors that contribute to this functional decline. This study aimed to investigate social cognitive abilities, which have previously been linked to functioning in schizophrenia, as potential factors that impact social, role and global functioning in ultra-high risk patients. Method: A total of 30 ultra-high risk patients were recruited from an established at-risk clinical service in Melbourne, Australia, and completed a battery of social cognitive, neurocognitive, clinical and functioning measures. We examined the relationships between all four core domains of social cognition (emotion recognition, theory of mind, social perception and attributional style), neurocognitive, clinical and demographic variables with three measures of functioning (the Global Functioning Social and Role scales and the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale) using correlational and multiple regression analyses. Results: Performance on a visual theory of mind task (visual jokes task) was significantly correlated with both concurrent role (r = 0.425, p = 0.019) and global functioning (r = 0.540, p = 0.002). In multivariate analyses, it also accounted for unique variance in global, but not role functioning after adjusting for negative symptoms and stress. Social functioning was not associated with performance on any of the social cognition tasks. Conclusion: Among specific social cognitive abilities, only a test of theory of mind was associated with functioning in our ultra-high risk sample. Further longitudinal research is needed to examine the impact of social cognitive deficits on long-term functional outcome in the ultra-high risk group. Identifying social cognitive abilities that significantly impact functioning is important to inform the development of targeted intervention programmes for ultra-high risk individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]