Search

ImportanceClinical trials have not established the optimal type, sequence, and duration of interventions for people at ultrahigh risk of psychosis.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of a sequential and adaptive intervention strategy for individuals at ultrahigh risk of psychosis.Design, setting, and participantsThe 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.InterventionsStep 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 measuresGlobal 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.ResultsThe 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 relevanceIn 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02751632.

Background: Since the late 1990s, there has been a worldwide surge of scientific interest in the pre-psychotic phase, resulting in the introduction of several clinical tools for early detection. The predictive accuracy of these tools has been limited, motivating the need for methodological and perspectival improvements. The EASE manual supports systematic assessment of anomalous self-experience, and proposes an overall model of understanding how most psychotic experiences may be initially generated on the basis of a unifying, fundamental, pre-reflective distortion of subjectivity., Study Design: The EASE is time-consuming, so in order to spread the use of this essential perspective of psychosis risk we selected prototypical and frequent phenomena from the EASE, combining them into SQuEASE-11. To investigate this instrument for clinical relevance, basic psychometric properties, factor structure, and relationships with gold standard instruments and the full EASE, it was administered as an interview in the STEP intervention trial (Melbourne, Australia), with 328 clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR-P) patients., Study Results: The SQuEASE-11 had moderate internal consistency and revealed two correlated factors. Significant relationships were observed between the SQuEASE-11 and the widely used and validated instruments CAARMS, BPRS, SANS, MADRS, DACOBS, and SOFAS. The correlation with the full EASE was very strong., Conclusions: These 11 items do not necessarily relate specifically to ipseity disturbance, but the SQuEASE-11 seems to be a clinically relevant and brief supplementary first-line interview in CHR-P subjects. It may give a qualified indication of the need for a complete EASE interview, and it may also, importantly, inform treatment planning., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)