Background: The diagnostic and prognostic significance of the DSM-5-defined Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome (DSM-5-APS) in individuals undergoing an ultra high risk (UHR) clinical assessment for suspicion of psychosis risk is unknown. Methods: Prospective cohort study including all consecutive help-seeking individuals undergoing both a DSM-5-APS and a Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental States (CAARMS 12/2006) assessment for psychosis risk at the Outreach and Support in South London (OASIS) UHR service (March 2013-April 2014). The diagnostic significance of DSM-5-APS was assessed with percent overall agreement, prevalence bias adjusted kappa, Bowker's test, Stuart-Maxwell test, residual analysis; the prognostic significance with Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier failure function, time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) and net benefits analysis. The impact of specific revisions of the DSM-5-APS was further tested. Result: In 203 help-seeking individuals undergoing UHR assessment, the agreement between the DSM-5-APS and the CAARMS 12/2006 was only moderate (kappa 0.59). Among 142 nonpsychotic cases, those meeting DSM-5-APS criteria had a 5-fold probability (HR = 5.379) of developing psychosis compared to those not meeting DSM-5-APS criteria, with a 21-month cumulative risk of psychosis of 28.17% vs 6.49%, respectively. The DSM-5-APS prognostic accuracy was acceptable (AUC 0.76 at 24 months) and similar to the CAARMS 12/2006. The DSM-5-APS designation may be clinically useful to guide the provision of indicated interventions within a 7%-35% (2-year) range of psychosis risk. The removal of the criterion E or C of the DSM-5-APS may improve its prognostic performance and transdiagnostic value. Conclusions: The DSM-5-APS designation may be clinically useful in individuals accessing clinical services for psychosis prevention.
Background: The diagnostic and prognostic significance of the DSM-5-defined Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome (DSM-5-APS) in individuals undergoing an ultra high risk (UHR) clinical assessment for suspicion of psychosis risk is unknown. Methods: Prospective cohort study including all consecutive help-seeking individuals undergoing both a DSM-5-APS and a Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental States (CAARMS 12/2006) assessment for psychosis risk at the Outreach and Support in South London (OASIS) UHR service (March 2013-April 2014). The diagnostic significance of DSM-5-APS was assessed with percent overall agreement, prevalence bias adjusted kappa, Bowker's test, Stuart-Maxwell test, residual analysis; the prognostic significance with Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier failure function, time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) and net benefits analysis. The impact of specific revisions of the DSM-5-APS was further tested. Result: In 203 help-seeking individuals undergoing UHR assessment, the agreement between the DSM-5-APS and the CAARMS 12/2006 was only moderate (kappa 0.59). Among 142 nonpsychotic cases, those meeting DSM-5-APS criteria had a 5-fold probability (HR = 5.379) of developing psychosis compared to those not meeting DSM-5-APS criteria, with a 21-month cumulative risk of psychosis of 28.17% vs 6.49%, respectively. The DSM-5-APS prognostic accuracy was acceptable (AUC 0.76 at 24 months) and similar to the CAARMS 12/2006. The DSM-5-APS designation may be clinically useful to guide the provision of indicated interventions within a 7%-35% (2-year) range of psychosis risk. The removal of the criterion E or C of the DSM-5-APS may improve its prognostic performance and transdiagnostic value. Conclusions: The DSM-5-APS designation may be clinically useful in individuals accessing clinical services for psychosis prevention.
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Marco Cappucciati; Stefan Borgwardt; Scott W Woods; Jean Addington; Barnaby Nelson; Dorien H Nieman; Daniel R Stahl; Grazia Rutigliano; Anita Riecher-Rössler; Andor E Simon; Masafumi Mizuno; Tae Young Lee; Jun Soo Kwon; May M L Lam; Jesus Perez; Szabolcs Keri; Paul Amminger; Sibylle Metzler; Wolfram Kawohl; Wulf Rössler; Jimmy Lee; Javier Labad; Tim Ziermans; Suk Kyoon An; Chen-Chung Liu; Kristen A Woodberry; Amel Braham; Cheryl Corcoran; Patrick McGorry; Alison R Yung; Philip K McGuire Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Madiha Shaikh; Anirban Dutt; Matthew R Broome; Alberto G Vozmediano; Siri Ranlund; Alvaro Diez; Olalla Caseiro; Julia Lappin; Susan Amankwa; Francesco Carletti; Paolo Fusar-Poli; Muriel Walshe; Mei-Hua Hall; Oliver Howes; Lyn Ellett; Robin M Murray; Philip McGuire; Lucia Valmaggia; Elvira Bramon Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Fa Zhan Chen; Yi Wang; Xi Rong Sun; Yu Hong Yao; Ning Zhang; Hui Fen Qiao; Lan Zhang; Zhan Jiang Li; Hong Lin; Zheng Lu; Jing Li; Raymond C K Chan; Xu Dong Zhao Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2016-06-01
Authors: P Fusar-Poli; M Cappucciati; G Rutigliano; T Y Lee; Q Beverly; I Bonoldi; J Lelli; S J Kaar; E Gago; M Rocchetti; R Patel; V Bhavsar; S Tognin; S Badger; M Calem; K Lim; J S Kwon; J Perez; P McGuire Journal: Psychiatry J Date: 2016-05-30
Authors: Cynthia B Solot; Tyler M Moore; Terrence Blaine Crowley; Marsha Gerdes; Edward Moss; Daniel E McGinn; Beverly S Emanuel; Elaine H Zackai; Sean Gallagher; Monica E Calkins; Kosha Ruparel; Ruben C Gur; Donna M McDonald-McGinn; Raquel E Gur Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Line Widing; Carmen Simonsen; Camilla B Flaaten; Beathe Haatveit; Ruth Kristine Vik; Kristin F Wold; Gina Åsbø; Torill Ueland; Ingrid Melle Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Dominic Oliver; Joaquim Radua; Abraham Reichenberg; Rudolf Uher; Paolo Fusar-Poli Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 4.157