BACKGROUND: The clinical high-risk state for psychosis (HRP) is associated with an enhanced probability of developing a psychotic episode over a relatively short period of time. However, the extent to which different diagnostic types of illness develop remains unclear. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify studies of HRP participants reporting International Classfication of Diseases/Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders diagnostic outcomes at follow-up. Demographic, clinical, and methodological variables were extracted from each publication or obtained directly from its authors. A meta-analysis was performed of transition to schizophrenic (SP) or affective psychoses (AP) and to specific diagnostic categories. Statistical heterogeneity and small study bias were assessed, and meta-regressions were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were retrieved, including a total of 2182 HRP participants, 560 (26%) of them developed a frank psychotic disorder over the follow-up time (mean = 2.35 y). Among HRP participants who developed psychosis, 73% were diagnosed with SP and only 11% with AP (Risk Ratio, RR = 5.43, 95% CI from 3.35 to 8.83). The specific transition risk to ICD/DSM schizophrenia was of 15.7% (over 2.35y). Heterogeneity was statistically significant and moderate in magnitude. Use of basic symptoms criteria in the baseline clinical assessment was associated with a further increase in the proportion progressing to SP vs AP (RR = 17.1). There was no evidence of publication bias and the sensitivity analysis confirmed robustness of the above results. CONCLUSIONS: The HRP state is heterogeneous in term of longitudinal diagnoses; however, the current HRP diagnostic criteria appear strongly biased toward an identification of early phases of SP rather than AP.
BACKGROUND: The clinical high-risk state for psychosis (HRP) is associated with an enhanced probability of developing a psychotic episode over a relatively short period of time. However, the extent to which different diagnostic types of illness develop remains unclear. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify studies of HRP participants reporting International Classfication of Diseases/Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders diagnostic outcomes at follow-up. Demographic, clinical, and methodological variables were extracted from each publication or obtained directly from its authors. A meta-analysis was performed of transition to schizophrenic (SP) or affective psychoses (AP) and to specific diagnostic categories. Statistical heterogeneity and small study bias were assessed, and meta-regressions were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were retrieved, including a total of 2182 HRP participants, 560 (26%) of them developed a frank psychotic disorder over the follow-up time (mean = 2.35 y). Among HRP participants who developed psychosis, 73% were diagnosed with SP and only 11% with AP (Risk Ratio, RR = 5.43, 95% CI from 3.35 to 8.83). The specific transition risk to ICD/DSM schizophrenia was of 15.7% (over 2.35y). Heterogeneity was statistically significant and moderate in magnitude. Use of basic symptoms criteria in the baseline clinical assessment was associated with a further increase in the proportion progressing to SP vs AP (RR = 17.1). There was no evidence of publication bias and the sensitivity analysis confirmed robustness of the above results. CONCLUSIONS: The HRP state is heterogeneous in term of longitudinal diagnoses; however, the current HRP diagnostic criteria appear strongly biased toward an identification of early phases of SP rather than AP.
Authors: Thomas H McGlashan; Jean Addington; Tyrone Cannon; Markus Heinimaa; Patrick McGorry; Mary O'Brien; David Penn; Diana Perkins; Raimo K R Salokangas; Barbara Walsh; Scott W Woods; Alison Yung Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2007-05-04 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: G Paul Amminger; Miriam R Schäfer; Konstantinos Papageorgiou; Claudia M Klier; Sue M Cotton; Susan M Harrigan; Andrew Mackinnon; Patrick D McGorry; Gregor E Berger Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2010-02
Authors: H Häfner; K Maurer; W Löffler; W an der Heiden; P Munk-Jørgensen; M Hambrecht; A Riecher-Rössler Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Patrick D McGorry; Barnaby Nelson; G Paul Amminger; Andreas Bechdolf; Shona M Francey; Gregor Berger; Anita Riecher-Rössler; Joachim Klosterkötter; Stephan Ruhrmann; Frauke Schultze-Lutter; Merete Nordentoft; Ian Hickie; Philip McGuire; Michael Berk; Eric Y H Chen; Matcheri S Keshavan; Alison R Yung Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Peter S Bloomfield; Sudhakar Selvaraj; Vincenzo de Paola; Oliver D Howes; Mattia Veronese; Gaia Rizzo; Alessandra Bertoldo; David R Owen; Michael Ap Bloomfield; Ilaria Bonoldi; Nicola Kalk; Federico Turkheimer; Philip McGuire Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Ming T Tsuang; Jim Van Os; Rajiv Tandon; Deanna M Barch; Juan Bustillo; Wolfgang Gaebel; Raquel E Gur; Stephan Heckers; Dolores Malaspina; Michael J Owen; Susan Schultz; William Carpenter Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Christin Schifani; Sina Hafizi; Huai-Hsuan Tseng; Cory Gerritsen; Miran Kenk; Alan A Wilson; Sylvain Houle; Pablo M Rusjan; Romina Mizrahi Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Rachel Loewy; Melissa Fisher; Danielle A Schlosser; Bruno Biagianti; Barbara Stuart; Daniel H Mathalon; Sophia Vinogradov Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Daniel Fulford; Tara A Niendam; Erin G Floyd; Cameron S Carter; Daniel H Mathalon; Sophia Vinogradov; Barbara K Stuart; Rachel L Loewy Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2013-04-12 Impact factor: 4.939