Anita Riecher-Rössler1, Erich Studerus. 1. Center for Gender Research and Early Detection, University of Basel Psychiatric Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: So far, only little more than one-third of individuals classified as being at-risk for psychosis have been shown to actually convert to frank psychosis during follow-up. There have therefore been enormous efforts to improve the accuracy of predicting this transition. We reviewed the most recent studies in the field with the aim to clarify whether accuracy of prediction has been improved by the different research endeavors and what could be done to further improve it, and/or what alternative goals research should pursue. RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 56 studies published between May 2015 and December 2016 were included, of which eight were meta-analyses. New meta-analytical evidence confirms that established instruments for checking clinical risk criteria have an excellent clinical utility in individuals referred to high-risk services. Within a such identified group of ultra-high-risk (UHR) individuals, especially Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms and Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms seem to predict transition. Further assessments should be performed within the UHR individuals, as risk of transition seems particularly high in those with an even higher severity of certain symptoms such as suspiciousness or anhedonia, in those with lower global or social functioning, poor neurocognitive performance or cannabis abuse. Also, electroencephalography, neuroimaging and blood biomarkers might contribute to improving individual prediction. The most promising approach certainly is a staged multidomain assessment. Risk calculators to integrate all data for an individualized prediction are being developed. SUMMARY: Prediction of psychosis is already possible with an excellent prognostic performance based on clinical assessments. Recent studies show that this accuracy can be further improved by using multidomain approaches and modern statistics for individualized prediction. The challenge now is the translation into the clinic with a broad clinical implementation.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: So far, only little more than one-third of individuals classified as being at-risk for psychosis have been shown to actually convert to frank psychosis during follow-up. There have therefore been enormous efforts to improve the accuracy of predicting this transition. We reviewed the most recent studies in the field with the aim to clarify whether accuracy of prediction has been improved by the different research endeavors and what could be done to further improve it, and/or what alternative goals research should pursue. RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 56 studies published between May 2015 and December 2016 were included, of which eight were meta-analyses. New meta-analytical evidence confirms that established instruments for checking clinical risk criteria have an excellent clinical utility in individuals referred to high-risk services. Within a such identified group of ultra-high-risk (UHR) individuals, especially Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms and Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms seem to predict transition. Further assessments should be performed within the UHR individuals, as risk of transition seems particularly high in those with an even higher severity of certain symptoms such as suspiciousness or anhedonia, in those with lower global or social functioning, poor neurocognitive performance or cannabis abuse. Also, electroencephalography, neuroimaging and blood biomarkers might contribute to improving individual prediction. The most promising approach certainly is a staged multidomain assessment. Risk calculators to integrate all data for an individualized prediction are being developed. SUMMARY: Prediction of psychosis is already possible with an excellent prognostic performance based on clinical assessments. Recent studies show that this accuracy can be further improved by using multidomain approaches and modern statistics for individualized prediction. The challenge now is the translation into the clinic with a broad clinical implementation.
Authors: Daniel J Hauke; André Schmidt; Erich Studerus; Christina Andreou; Anita Riecher-Rössler; Joaquim Radua; Joseph Kambeitz; Anne Ruef; Dominic B Dwyer; Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic; Theresa Lichtenstein; Rachele Sanfelici; Nora Penzel; Shalaila S Haas; Linda A Antonucci; Paris Alexandros Lalousis; Katharine Chisholm; Frauke Schultze-Lutter; Stephan Ruhrmann; Jarmo Hietala; Paolo Brambilla; Nikolaos Koutsouleris; Eva Meisenzahl; Christos Pantelis; Marlene Rosen; Raimo K R Salokangas; Rachel Upthegrove; Stephen J Wood; Stefan Borgwardt Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Tyler M Moore; Monica E Calkins; Adon F G Rosen; Ellyn R Butler; Kosha Ruparel; Paolo Fusar-Poli; Nikolaos Koutsouleris; Philip McGuire; Tyrone D Cannon; Ruben C Gur; Raquel E Gur Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 10.592
Authors: Stephanie Menghini-Müller; Erich Studerus; Sarah Ittig; Lucia R Valmaggia; Matthew J Kempton; Mark van der Gaag; Lieuwe de Haan; Barnaby Nelson; Rodrigo A Bressan; Neus Barrantes-Vidal; Célia Jantac; Merete Nordentoft; Stephan Ruhrmann; Garbiele Sachs; Bart P Rutten; Jim van Os; Anita Riecher-Rössler Journal: Eur Psychiatry Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 5.361
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Nomi Werbeloff; Grazia Rutigliano; Dominic Oliver; Cathy Davies; Daniel Stahl; Philip McGuire; David Osborn Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Guusje Collin; Alfonso Nieto-Castanon; Martha E Shenton; Ofer Pasternak; Sinead Kelly; Matcheri S Keshavan; Larry J Seidman; Robert W McCarley; Margaret A Niznikiewicz; Huijun Li; Tianhong Zhang; Yingying Tang; William S Stone; Jijun Wang; Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 4.881