Zachary B Millman1,2, Caroline Roemer3, Teresa Vargas4, Jason Schiffman5, Vijay A Mittal4, James M Gold6. 1. Psychotic Disorders Division, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Psychology Department, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA. 5. Department of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. 6. Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Youth at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis present with neuropsychological impairments relative to healthy controls (HC), but whether these impairments are distinguishable from those seen among putatively lower risk peers with other psychopathology remains unknown. We hypothesized that any excess impairment among CHR cohorts beyond that seen in other clinical groups is minimal and accounted for by the proportion who transition to psychosis (CHR-T). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing cognitive performance among CHR youth to clinical comparators (CC) who either sought mental health services but did not meet CHR criteria or presented with verified nonpsychotic psychopathology. STUDY RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included representing nearly 4000 participants. Individuals at CHR showed substantial cognitive impairments relative to HC (eg, global cognition: g = -0.48 [-0.60, -0.34]), but minimal impairments relative to CC (eg, global cognition: g = -0.13 [-0.20, -0.06]). Any excess impairment among CHR was almost entirely attributable to CHR-T; impairment among youth at CHR without transition (CHR-NT) was typically indistinguishable from CC (eg, global cognition, CHR-T: g = -0.42 [-0.64, -0.19], CHR-NT: g = -0.09 [-0.18, 0.00]; processing speed, CHR-T: g = -0.59 [-0.82, -0.37], CHR-NT: g = -0.12 [-0.25, 0.07]; working memory, CHR-T: g = -0.42 [-0.62, -0.22], CHR-NT: g = -0.03 [-0.14, 0.08]). CONCLUSIONS: Neurocognitive impairment in CHR cohorts should be interpreted cautiously when psychosis or even CHR status is the specific clinical syndrome of interest as these impairments most likely represent a transdiagnostic vs psychosis-specific vulnerability.
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Youth at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis present with neuropsychological impairments relative to healthy controls (HC), but whether these impairments are distinguishable from those seen among putatively lower risk peers with other psychopathology remains unknown. We hypothesized that any excess impairment among CHR cohorts beyond that seen in other clinical groups is minimal and accounted for by the proportion who transition to psychosis (CHR-T). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing cognitive performance among CHR youth to clinical comparators (CC) who either sought mental health services but did not meet CHR criteria or presented with verified nonpsychotic psychopathology. STUDY RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included representing nearly 4000 participants. Individuals at CHR showed substantial cognitive impairments relative to HC (eg, global cognition: g = -0.48 [-0.60, -0.34]), but minimal impairments relative to CC (eg, global cognition: g = -0.13 [-0.20, -0.06]). Any excess impairment among CHR was almost entirely attributable to CHR-T; impairment among youth at CHR without transition (CHR-NT) was typically indistinguishable from CC (eg, global cognition, CHR-T: g = -0.42 [-0.64, -0.19], CHR-NT: g = -0.09 [-0.18, 0.00]; processing speed, CHR-T: g = -0.59 [-0.82, -0.37], CHR-NT: g = -0.12 [-0.25, 0.07]; working memory, CHR-T: g = -0.42 [-0.62, -0.22], CHR-NT: g = -0.03 [-0.14, 0.08]). CONCLUSIONS: Neurocognitive impairment in CHR cohorts should be interpreted cautiously when psychosis or even CHR status is the specific clinical syndrome of interest as these impairments most likely represent a transdiagnostic vs psychosis-specific vulnerability.
Authors: J J Deeks; J Dinnes; R D'Amico; A J Sowden; C Sakarovitch; F Song; M Petticrew; D G Altman Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2003 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: P Fusar-Poli; G Rutigliano; D Stahl; C Davies; A De Micheli; V Ramella-Cravaro; I Bonoldi; P McGuire Journal: Eur Psychiatry Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 5.361
Authors: Anup Sharma; Daniel H Wolf; Rastko Ciric; Joseph W Kable; Tyler M Moore; Simon N Vandekar; Natalie Katchmar; Aylin Daldal; Kosha Ruparel; Christos Davatzikos; Mark A Elliott; Monica E Calkins; Russell T Shinohara; Danielle S Bassett; Theodore D Satterthwaite Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Deidre M Anglin; Sabrina Ereshefsky; Mallory J Klaunig; Miranda A Bridgwater; Tara A Niendam; Lauren M Ellman; Jordan DeVylder; Griffin Thayer; Khalima Bolden; Christie W Musket; Rebecca E Grattan; Sarah Hope Lincoln; Jason Schiffman; Emily Lipner; Peter Bachman; Cheryl M Corcoran; Natália B Mota; Els van der Ven Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Tamar C Kraan; Eva Velthorst; Manouk Themmen; Lucia Valmaggia; Matthew J Kempton; Phillip McGuire; Jim van Os; Bart P F Rutten; Filip Smit; Lieuwe de Haan; Mark van der Gaag Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Jessica A Hartmann; Patrick D McGorry; Louise Destree; G Paul Amminger; Andrew M Chanen; Christopher G Davey; Rachid Ghieh; Andrea Polari; Aswin Ratheesh; Hok Pan Yuen; Barnaby Nelson Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 4.157