Skip to main content
Evidence-Based Mental Health logoLink to Evidence-Based Mental Health
. 2014 Mar 3;17(2):39. doi: 10.1136/eb-2013-101568

In people with ultra high risk symptoms, risk of transition to psychotic disorders is highest in the first 2 years

PMCID: PMC4334583  NIHMSID: NIHMS657999  PMID: 24591545

Question

Question: What are the baseline clinical predictors, and long-term transition rates to a psychotic disorder in an ultra-high risk population?

Population: A total of 416 people (aged 15–30 years) considered at ultra-high risk (UHR) of developing a psychotic disorder, being treated at the Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation Clinic (PACE). Exclusions: people with a current or past psychotic disorder, known organic cause, and use of neuroleptics. Participants were tracked using the National Death Index, mental health record system, electoral roll, telephone directory, previous contacts and internet searching.

Setting: PACE Clinic, Melbourne, Australia; recruitment 1993–2006.

Prognostic factors: UHR criteria, defined as attenuated positive psychotic symptoms (APPS), brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms (BLIPS), and trait and state risk factors (Trait). APPS was one or more of the following symptoms within the past year, present for between 1 week and 5 years and occurring at least several times a week: ideas of reference, perceptual disturbance, odd thinking and speech, odd behaviour and appearance, odd beliefs or magical thinking. BLIPS was one or more of the following symptoms within the past year, present for less than 1 week and occurring at least several times a week but resolved spontaneously: paranoid ideation, ideas of reference, perceptual disturbance, odd thinking or speech or magical thinking. Trait was defined as, within the past year, schizotypal personality disorder in the individual or a first-degree relative with a psychotic disorder, and decline in mental state or functioning (30% drop in Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score) for between 1 month and 5 years.

Outcomes: Transition to psychotic disorder. This was defined as one fully positive psychotic symptom several times a week and lasting for more than a week (assessment made by Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS); Comprehensive Assessment of Symptoms and History (CASH); Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS); GAF; or public mental health records). Survival analysis was used to analyse transition to psychotic disorder using Kaplan-Meier to estimate transition rates and Cox regression for significance of predictors.

Methods

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Follow-up period: Mean follow-up 7.5 years (range 2.4–14.9 years).

Main results

A total of 311 participants (74.8%) were interviewed at follow-up. Transition to a psychotic disorder had occurred in 114 people (27%). Rates of transition were highest during the first 2 years (20%), but risks of transition remained for up to 10 years after first referral (see online table 1). Overall transition rate was 34.9% over a decade (95% CI 28.7% to 40.6%). Baseline clinical predictors significantly associated with transition include baseline year, BLIPS symptoms, low functioning, conceptual disorganisation, thought disorder, negative symptoms, positive symptoms, impaired motor functioning and longer duration of symptoms. Stepwise regression indicated that global functioning, duration of symptoms and baseline year were the most significant predictors.

Conclusions

People with UHR of transition to psychotic disorders are at greatest risk in the first 2 years after service entry but remain at long-term risk. Long duration of symptoms and poor global functioning were among significant predictors of psychosis.

Abstracted from

Nelson B, Yuen HP, Wood SJ, et al. Long-term follow-up of a group at ultra high risk (‘Prodromal’ for psychosis: the PACE 400 Study. JAMA Psychiatry 2013; 70: 793– 802.

Footnotes

Sources of funding: National Health and Medical Research Council; Colonial Foundation Grant.

Evid Based Ment Health. 2014 Mar 3;17(2):39.

Commentary

Danielle A Schlosser 1

Over the past 25 years, significant advances have been made in establishing a reliable ultra high risk (UHR) syndrome that predicts the onset of psychotic disorders. This has ushered in the exciting possibility that one can prevent psychosis with early, targeted interventions. To achieve this possibility, researchers are focusing on reliably identifying clinical predictors of risk, which clinicians can use to guide pre-emptive treatments.

Nelson and colleagues investigated predictors of transition to psychosis in the first long-term follow-up study of UHR patients. The rate of conversion results were consistent with prior studies1 suggesting that the UHR criteria continues to be a valid and reliable predictor of imminent psychosis onset. The most robust clinical predictors included longer duration of attenuated psychotic symptoms (>738 days) and poor global functioning (GAF <44), which led to a risk of 72% of developing psychosis within 5 years. While this risk profile might represent individuals inevitably on the path to developing psychosis, it is possible that a focused strategy of aggressively treating global functioning impairments and comorbid mood and anxiety symptoms could protect against transition to psychosis. Few interventions in UHR samples have focused on this approach. Instead, treatment strategies target attenuated psychotic symptoms, which yield limited success at preventing psychosis in UHR patients.

In addition to developing targeted treatment strategies for preventing psychosis, this study highlights the importance of learning more about influences on functional impairment in this population. In schizophrenia, we know that cognitive deficits and negative symptoms are the primary drivers of functional impairment, but less is known about the role of comorbidities affecting functional outcomes in UHR patients. In clinical practice, targets for treatment should expand to treating mood and anxiety symptoms, rather than only on attenuated psychotic symptoms. The clinical implications of this paper's findings are limited by the narrow scope of examining only psychosis as an outcome. It is unclear, for instance, why some individuals who are identified as at-risk do not develop psychosis. While this might have been out of scope of the current paper, the findings could have had greater clinical relevance if it examined predictive factors of resilience from an at-risk state.

Footnotes

Competing interests: None.

Reference

  • 1.Fusar-Poli P, Bonoldi I, Yung AR, et al. Predicting psychosis: meta-analysis of transition outcomes in individuals at high clinical risk. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012;69:220–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Evidence-Based Mental Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES