JunJie Wang1, TianHong Zhang2, LiHua Xu2, YanYan Wei2, XiaoChen Tang2, YeGang Hu2, HuiRu Cui2, YingYing Tang2, ChunBo Li2, Zheng Ling3, JiJun Wang4,5,6. 1. Institute of Mental Health, Suzhou Guangji Hospital, The Affiliated Guangji Hospital of Soochow University, Soochow University, Suzhou, 215137, Jiangsu, China. 2. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders (No.13dz2260500), Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200030, PR China. 3. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders (No.13dz2260500), Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200030, PR China. lingzheng0416@163.com. 4. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders (No.13dz2260500), Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200030, PR China. jijunwang27@163.com. 5. Bio-X Institutes, Key Laboratory for the Genetics of Developmental and Neuropsychiatric Disorders (Ministry of Education), Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, 600 Wanping Nan Road, Shanghai, 200030, China. jijunwang27@163.com. 6. Brain Science and Technology Research Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. jijunwang27@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although existing guidelines have discouraged use of antipsychotics for general clinical high-risk (CHR) individuals, it is unclear if antipsychotics can prevent psychosis in higher-risk population. We aimed to study the comparative real-world effectiveness of antipsychotic treatments for preventing psychosis in higher-risk CHR individuals. METHODS: A total of 300 CHR individuals were identified using the structured interview for prodromal syndromes (SIPS) and followed the participants for 3 years. In total, 228(76.0%) individuals completed baseline assessments using the NAPLS-2 risk calculator (NAPLS-2-RC), and 210(92.1%) completed the follow-up. The sample was further stratified according to risk level. "Higher-risk" was defined based on the NAPLS-2-RC risk score (≥ 20%) and SIPS positive symptom total scores (≥ 10). The main outcome was conversion to psychosis and poor functional outcomes, defined as a global assessment of function (GAF) score lower than 60 at follow-up. RESULTS: In higher-risk CHR individuals, we found no significant difference in the rate of conversion to psychosis or poor functional outcomes between the antipsychotic and no-antipsychotic groups. Low-risk individuals treated with antipsychotic drugs were more likely exhibit poor functional outcomes compared with the no-antipsychotics group(NAPLS-2-RC estimated risk: χ2 = 8.330, p = 0.004; Positive symptom severity: χ2 = 12.997, p < 0.001). No significant effective factors were identified for prevention of the conversion to psychosis; conversely, CHR individuals who were treated with high dose antipsychotics (olanzapine, aripiprazole) showed a significantly increased risk of poor functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In CHR individuals, antipsychotic treatment should be provided with caution because of the risk of poor functional outcomes. Further, antipsychotic treatment does not appear to prevent onset of psychosis in real-world settings.
OBJECTIVE: Although existing guidelines have discouraged use of antipsychotics for general clinical high-risk (CHR) individuals, it is unclear if antipsychotics can prevent psychosis in higher-risk population. We aimed to study the comparative real-world effectiveness of antipsychotic treatments for preventing psychosis in higher-risk CHR individuals. METHODS: A total of 300 CHR individuals were identified using the structured interview for prodromal syndromes (SIPS) and followed the participants for 3 years. In total, 228(76.0%) individuals completed baseline assessments using the NAPLS-2 risk calculator (NAPLS-2-RC), and 210(92.1%) completed the follow-up. The sample was further stratified according to risk level. "Higher-risk" was defined based on the NAPLS-2-RC risk score (≥ 20%) and SIPS positive symptom total scores (≥ 10). The main outcome was conversion to psychosis and poor functional outcomes, defined as a global assessment of function (GAF) score lower than 60 at follow-up. RESULTS: In higher-risk CHR individuals, we found no significant difference in the rate of conversion to psychosis or poor functional outcomes between the antipsychotic and no-antipsychotic groups. Low-risk individuals treated with antipsychotic drugs were more likely exhibit poor functional outcomes compared with the no-antipsychotics group(NAPLS-2-RC estimated risk: χ2 = 8.330, p = 0.004; Positive symptom severity: χ2 = 12.997, p < 0.001). No significant effective factors were identified for prevention of the conversion to psychosis; conversely, CHR individuals who were treated with high dose antipsychotics (olanzapine, aripiprazole) showed a significantly increased risk of poor functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In CHR individuals, antipsychotic treatment should be provided with caution because of the risk of poor functional outcomes. Further, antipsychotic treatment does not appear to prevent onset of psychosis in real-world settings.
Authors: P Fusar-Poli; M Frascarelli; L Valmaggia; M Byrne; D Stahl; M Rocchetti; L Codjoe; L Weinberg; S Tognin; L Xenaki; P McGuire Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Ilaria Bonoldi; Alison R Yung; Stefan Borgwardt; Matthew J Kempton; Lucia Valmaggia; Francesco Barale; Edgardo Caverzasi; Philip McGuire Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2012-03
Authors: Paul Allen; Judy Luigjes; Oliver D Howes; Alice Egerton; Kazuyuki Hirao; Isabel Valli; Joseph Kambeitz; Paolo Fusar-Poli; Matthew Broome; Philip McGuire Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Tyrone D Cannon; Changhong Yu; Jean Addington; Carrie E Bearden; Kristin S Cadenhead; Barbara A Cornblatt; Robert Heinssen; Clark D Jeffries; Daniel H Mathalon; Thomas H McGlashan; Diana O Perkins; Larry J Seidman; Ming T Tsuang; Elaine F Walker; Scott W Woods; Michael W Kattan Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Stephen F Austin; Ole Mors; Rikke Gry Secher; Carsten R Hjorthøj; Nikolai Albert; Mette Bertelsen; Heidi Jensen; Pia Jeppesen; Lone Petersen; Lasse Randers; Anne Thorup; Merete Nordentoft Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Tyrone D Cannon; Kristin Cadenhead; Barbara Cornblatt; Scott W Woods; Jean Addington; Elaine Walker; Larry J Seidman; Diana Perkins; Ming Tsuang; Thomas McGlashan; Robert Heinssen Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2008-01
Authors: P Fusar-Poli; R Smieskova; M J Kempton; B C Ho; N C Andreasen; S Borgwardt Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 8.989