Search

Key Points: Question: What are the optimal type, timing, and sequence of interventions for individuals at ultrahigh risk of psychosis? Findings: In this sequential multiple assignment randomized trial including 342 individuals, a specialized psychological intervention (cognitive-behavioral case management [CBCM]) and a psychopharmacological intervention (CBCM and antidepressant medication) were not more efficacious than control conditions in improving remission and functional recovery. Relapse rates among individuals who remitted were high. Meaning: The findings of this study show that addition of sequentially more specialized psychosocial and antidepressant treatment for individuals who did not remit did not lead to superior outcomes, underscoring the need for further adaptive trials, treatment innovation, and an extended duration of care for relapse prevention. This sequential multiple assignment randomized trial evaluates the efficacy of an intervention strategy for individuals at ultrahigh risk of psychosis. Importance: Clinical trials have not established the optimal type, sequence, and duration of interventions for people at ultrahigh risk of psychosis. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a sequential and adaptive intervention strategy for individuals at ultrahigh risk of psychosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Staged Treatment in Early Psychosis (STEP) sequential multiple assignment randomized trial took place within the clinical program at Orygen, Melbourne, Australia. Individuals aged 12 to 25 years who were seeking treatment and met criteria for ultrahigh risk of psychosis according to the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States were recruited between April 2016 and January 2019. Of 1343 individuals considered, 342 were recruited. Interventions: Step 1: 6 weeks of support and problem solving (SPS); step 2: 20 weeks of cognitive-behavioral case management (CBCM) vs SPS; and step 3: 26 weeks of CBCM with fluoxetine vs CBCM with placebo with an embedded fast-fail option of ω-3 fatty acids or low-dose antipsychotic medication. Individuals who did not remit progressed through these steps; those who remitted received SPS or monitoring for up to 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Global Functioning: Social and Role scales (primary outcome), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, quality of life, transition to psychosis, and remission and relapse rates. Results: The sample comprised 342 participants (198 female; mean [SD] age, 17.7 [3.1] years). Remission rates, reflecting sustained symptomatic and functional improvement, were 8.5%, 10.3%, and 11.4% at steps 1, 2, and 3, respectively. A total of 27.2% met remission criteria at any step. Relapse rates among those who remitted did not significantly differ between SPS and monitoring (step 1: 65.1% vs 58.3%; step 2: 37.7% vs 47.5%). There was no significant difference in functioning, symptoms, and transition rates between SPS and CBCM and between CBCM with fluoxetine and CBCM with placebo. Twelve-month transition rates to psychosis were 13.5% (entire sample), 3.3% (those who ever remitted), and 17.4% (those with no remission). Conclusions and Relevance: In this sequential multiple assignment randomized trial, transition rates to psychosis were moderate, and remission rates were lower than expected, partly reflecting the ambitious criteria set and challenges with real-world treatment fidelity and adherence. While all groups showed mild to moderate functional and symptomatic improvement, this was typically short of remission. While further adaptive trials that address these challenges are needed, findings confirm substantial and sustained morbidity and reveal relatively poor responsiveness to existing treatments. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02751632 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite the established finding that migrants are at higher risk of developing a first-episode psychosis, they are under-represented in cohorts of young people identified as being at ultra-high risk for psychosis (UHR). Therefore, in order to determine the reasons for these conflicting findings, this study examined the pathways to care and clinical presentation of migrants attending an At-Risk Mental State clinic.Methodology: This study included consecutive UHR cases identified over five years attending the PACE clinic in Melbourne, Australia. The CAARMS was used to assess the severity of attenuated psychotic symptoms. Depressive symptoms and functioning were measured using the PHQ9 and GAF, respectively.Results: Over the five-year study period, 461 UHR young people attended the PACE clinic and 13.7% were first-generation migrants. A higher proportion of migrants were referred by community health services, such as general practitioners, than other referral sources. Australian born UHR patients were more likely to be referred via another mental health service. There was no difference in the type or severity of attenuated psychotic symptoms based on migrant status, except that there was a trend for young African migrants to have more severe unusual thought content. Depressive symptoms and poor functioning were highly prevalent across the total cohort and did not differ according to migrant status.Conclusions: It is not yet understood why migrants are under-represented in UHR cohorts. Qualitative interviews of migrants, who are not typically identified in the UHR stage, could provide insights into the barriers to accessing care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: It is now necessary to investigate whether recovery in psychosis is possible without the use of antipsychotic medication. This study will determine (1) whether a first‐episode psychosis (FEP) group receiving intensive psychosocial interventions alone can achieve symptomatic remission and functional recovery; (2) whether prolonging the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) in a sub‐group according to randomisation will be associated with a poorer outcome and thereby establish whether the relationship between DUP and outcome is causative; and (3) whether neurobiological changes observed in FEP are associated with the psychotic disorder or antipsychotic medication. Baseline characteristics of participants will be presented. Methods: This study is a triple‐blind randomized placebo‐controlled non‐inferiority trial. The primary outcome is the level of functioning measured by the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale at 6 months. This study is being conducted at the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre, Melbourne and includes young people aged 15 to 24 years with a DSM‐IV psychotic disorder, a DUP less than 6 months and not high risk for suicide or harm to others. Strict discontinuation criteria are being applied. Participants are also undergoing three 3‐Tesla‐MRI scans. Results: Ninety participants have been recruited and baseline characteristics are presented. Conclusions: Staged treatment and acceptability guidelines in early psychosis will determine whether antipsychotic medications are indicated in all young people with a FEP and whether antipsychotic medication can be safely delayed. Furthermore, the relative contribution of psychotic illness and antipsychotic medication in terms of structural brain changes will also be elucidated. The findings will inform clinical practice guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Labeling terms for high-risk state for psychosis, such as 'ultra-high risk' (UHR), 'attenuated psychosis syndrome' (APS), and 'at-risk mental state' (ARMS), have been criticized for their potential to lead to stigma. Hence, mental health service users in Melbourne recently proposed new terms illustrating the at-risk concept ['pre-diagnosis stage' (PDS), 'potential of developing a mental illness' (PDMI), and 'disposition for developing a mental illness' (DDMI)]. We aimed at testing the suitability of these existing and new terms in the clinical settings of early psychiatric intervention in Japan. At two centers of early intervention (Toyama and Tokyo), a questionnaire on the understanding and opinion of high-risk terminology was administered to 62 high-risk patients, 44 caregivers, and 64 clinicians. The questionnaire contained the existing and new terms, where the term ARMS was translated into two different Japanese terms ARMS-psychosis and ARMS- kokoro. Participants' opinion on the disclosure of high-risk status was also obtained. ARMS- kokoro was most preferred, least stigmatizing, and best explaining the patients' difficulties for all groups, while UHR and other terms including the Japanese word 'psychosis' (i.e., APS and ARMS-psychosis) were not preferred. New labeling terms were generally not well received. All groups preferred full disclosure of high-risk terms by the psychiatrist with or without the presence of family members. The term ARMS- kokoro was commonly accepted as a favorable labeling term for the high-risk state for psychosis in Japan. However, another translation ARMS-psychosis was considered stigmatizing, demonstrating the importance of appropriate translation of high-risk terminology into local languages. • Existing terms for psychosis high-risk status may lead to stigma. • Patients, family members, and clinicians were surveyed about high-risk terms. • ARMS- kokoro was most preferred and least stigmatizing among high-risk terms. • Ultra-high risk and other terms including 'psychosis' were not preferred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]