Search

The current paper examines a neglected function of ‘ultra high risk’ (UHR) clinics: to detect first-episode psychosis (FEP) mistakenly identified as a prodrome. A clinical audit was conducted of referrals to a UHR service, the Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation Clinic, over a 12-month period (April 2005–March 2006). In this audit, 11.4% of the total number of referrals ( n= 149) and 11.9% of those who attended a first appointment were psychotic on referral. These figures indicate that a substantial proportion of individuals thought to be prodromal are in fact suffering FEP. UHR clinics minimize duration of untreated psychosis for FEP patients mistaken as prodromal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Recognizing the prodrome of a first psychotic episode prospectively creates the opportunity of intervention, which could delay, ameliorate or even prevent onset. Valid criteria and a reliable methodology for identifying possible prodromes are needed. This paper describes an instrument, the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS), which has been designed for such a purpose. It has two functions: (i) to assess psychopathology thought to indicate imminent development of a first-episode psychotic disorder; and (ii) to determine if an individual meets criteria for being at ultra high risk (UHR) for onset of first psychotic disorder. This paper describes the pilot evaluation of the CAARMS. Method: Several methodologies were used to test the CAARMS. First, CAARMS scores in a group of UHR young people and the association between CAARMS scores and the risk of transition to psychotic disorder, were analysed. Second, CAARMS scores in a UHR group were compared to a control group. To assess concurrent validity, CAARMS-defined UHR criteria were compared to the existing criteria for identifying the UHR cohort. To assess predictive validity, the CAARMS-defined UHR criteria were applied to a sample of 150 non-psychotic help-seekers and rates of onset of psychotic disorder at 6-month follow-up determined for the CAARMS-positive (i.e. met UHR criteria) group and the CAARMS-negative (i.e. did not meet UHR criteria) group. The inter-rater reliability of the CAARMS was assessed by using pairs of raters. Results: High CAARMS score in the UHR group was significantly associated with onset of psychotic disorder. The control group had significantly lower CAARMS scores than the UHR group. The UHR criteria assessed by the CAARMS identified a similar group to the criteria measured by existing methodology. In the sample of non-psychotic help-seekers those who were CAARMS-positive were at significantly increased risk of onset of psychotic disorder compared to those who were CAARMS-negative (relative risk of 12.44 (95% CI = 1.5–103.41, p = 0.0025)). The CAARMS had good to excellent reliability. Conclusions: In these preliminary investigations, the CAARMS displayed good to excellent concurrent, discriminant and predictive validity and excellent inter-rater reliability. The CAARMS instrument provides a useful platform for monitoring subthreshold psychotic symptoms for worsening into full-threshold psychotic disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The identification of individuals at high risk of developing a psychotic disorder has long been a goal of clinicians because it is thought that early treatment of this group may prevent onset of the disorder. However, little is known of predictive factors of psychosis, even within a high-risk group. This study followed up 104 young people thought to be at ‘ultra high risk’ for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders by virtue of having a family history of psychotic disorder combined with some functional decline or the presence of subthreshold or self-limiting psychotic symptoms. All subjects were therefore symptomatic, but not psychotic, at intake. Thirty-six subjects (34.6%) developed frank psychotic symptoms within 12 months.Measures of symptom duration, functioning, disability and psychopathology were made at intake, 6 and 12 months. Poor functioning, long duration of symptoms, high levels of depression and reduced attention were all predictors of psychosis. A combination of family history of psychosis, a recent significant decrease in functioning and recent experience of subthreshold psychotic symptoms was also predictive of psychosis. Combining highly predictive variables yielded a method of psychosis prediction at 12 months with good positive predictive value (80.8%), negative predictive value (81.8%) and specificity (92.6%) and moderate sensitivity (60.0%).Within our symptomatic high-risk group, therefore, it appears possible to identify those individuals who are at particularly high risk of developing a psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia. Given the very high PPV and low false positive rate with this two-step process, it may be justifiable to target these individuals for intensive monitoring of mental state and even low-dose neuroleptic medication or other biological and psychosocial treatments depending on clinical condition. This indicated prevention approach could be further developed and preventive strategies in the psychoses refined. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]