Elsevier

Schizophrenia Research

Volume 195, May 2018, Pages 543-548
Schizophrenia Research

The Ultra-High-Risk for psychosis groups: Evidence to maintain the status quo

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2017.09.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Individuals are considered Ultra-High-Risk (UHR) for psychosis if they meet a set of standardised criteria including presumed genetic vulnerability (Trait), or a recent history of Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms (APS) or Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms (BLIPS). Recent calls to revise these criteria have arisen from evidence that Trait, APS and BLIPS groups may transition to psychosis at different rates. Concurrently, it has become clear that the UHR status confers clinical risk beyond transition to psychosis. Specifically, most UHR individuals will not develop psychosis, but will experience high rates of non-psychotic disorders, persistent APS and poor long-term functional outcomes. Rather than focus on transition, the present study investigated whether UHR groups differ in their broader clinical risk profile by examining baseline clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes other than transition to psychosis. Four UHR groups were defined: Trait-only, APS-only, Trait + APS, and any BLIPS. Participants (N = 702) were recruited upon entry to early intervention services and followed-up over a period of up to 13 years (mean = 4.53, SD = 3.84). The groups evidenced similar symptom severity (SANS for negative symptoms, BPRS for positive and depression/anxiety symptoms) and psychosocial functioning (SOFAS, GAF, QLS) at baseline and follow-up as well as similar prevalence of non-psychotic disorders at follow-up. Our findings demonstrate that UHR groups evidence a similar clinical risk profile when we expand this beyond transition to psychosis, and consequently support maintaining the existing UHR criteria.

Introduction

It has been two decades since Yung and colleagues (Yung and McGorry, 1996a) introduced a set of standardised criteria to identify individuals at Ultra-High-Risk (UHR) of developing a psychotic disorder (also known as the At Risk Mental State or ‘prodromal’ phase of psychosis). Since this time, the UHR paradigm has provided a window into risk factors and aetiological mechanisms involved in psychosis onset and an opportunity to trial preventive interventions (van der Gaag et al., 2013). To be considered UHR, help-seeking individuals must be in the age range of highest risk for psychosis (late adolescence, early adulthood) and meet one or more of the following 3 criteria: 1) Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms (APS): sub-threshold positive psychotic symptoms during the past 12 months; 2) Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms (BLIPS): frank psychotic symptoms for less than one week which resolve spontaneously; 3) Genetic vulnerability (Trait) – meet criteria for Schizotypal Personality Disorder or have a first-degree relative with a psychotic disorder. Each risk criteria must also be associated with a deterioration in functioning or chronic low functioning.2

Over the years, evidence has pointed to variability between groups defined by these UHR criteria in relation to risk of transitioning to a psychotic disorder (Fusar-Poli et al., 2015, Nelson et al., 2011, Nelson et al., 2013). A history of BLIPS (regardless of APS or Trait risk) has consistently been linked to the highest risk of transitioning to a psychotic disorder (Fusar-Poli et al., 2015, Nelson et al., 2011, Nelson et al., 2013). Presumed genetic vulnerability (Trait) with no history of APS or BLIPS (Trait-only) confers the lowest transition risk (Fusar-Poli et al., 2015, Nelson et al., 2011). An early study found that the combination of genetic vulnerability and APS (Trait + APS) was strongly predictive of transition to psychosis by twelve months (Yung et al., 2004). However, more recent evidence suggests similar risk trajectories for Trait + APS individuals and individuals who meet APS criteria alone (APS-only) (Fusar-Poli et al., 2015, Nelson et al., 2011).

Evidence of variability in transition risk has prompted some researchers to challenge the current composition of the UHR criteria. In a guidance paper for the European Psychiatric Association, Schultz-Lutter and colleagues recommended that having a first-degree relative with a psychotic illness should not be considered a clinical marker of risk for psychosis even in the presence of functional decline (Schultze-Lutter et al., 2015). Others have proposed that BLIPS should be treated as a separate clinical entity based on both higher transition risk and diagnostic overlap with DSM/ICD brief psychotic disorders (Fusar-Poli et al., 2015).

Concurrently, it has become increasingly evident that clinical implications of UHR status extend beyond risk of transition to psychosis. Most individuals who meet UHR criteria will not develop a psychotic disorder (Nelson et al., 2013, Simon et al., 2011) but will experience persistent Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms (de Wit et al., 2014, Simon et al., 2011), poor psychosocial functioning (Rutigliano et al., 2016a) and high rates of non-psychotic disorders (de Wit et al., 2014, Lin et al., 2015, Rutigliano et al., 2016b). Such findings have driven a reframing of UHR as a clinical state signifying pluripotent, transdiagnostic risk and the need for clinical care, rather than simply a marker of psychosis risk (McGorry et al., 2006, McGorry and Nelson, 2016, Yung et al., 2012).

In the current study we investigated possible differences between the UHR groups in clinical risk other than transition to psychosis. Specifically, we examined baseline clinical characteristics known to contribute to poor outcomes in UHR populations, including symptom severity (Fusar-Poli et al., 2013, Nelson et al., 2013, Seidman et al., 2010), psychosocial functioning (Nelson et al., 2013, Seidman et al., 2010), duration of symptoms prior to first contact with clinical services (Nelson et al., 2013) and the year that individuals entered clinical services (Nelson et al., 2013, Simon et al., 2014, Yung et al., 2007). We also examined long-term non-transition outcomes including symptom severity, psychosocial functioning and the prevalence of non-psychotic disorders. A large cohort (N = 702) of UHR individuals were recruited at entry to treatment early psychosis clinical service and re-assessed up to thirteen years later. For consistency with previous studies (Fusar-Poli et al., 2015, Nelson et al., 2011), we defined four combinations of UHR risk group: Trait-only, APS-only, Trait + APS, and any BLIPS (regardless of Trait or APS criteria). If the UHR groups defined here engender truly distinct psychopathological risk profiles, we would expect group differences to emerge in baseline characteristics and long-term non-transition outcomes.

Section snippets

Participants and setting

The present sample (N = 702) were recruited between 1995 and 2013, across 10 research sites in Australia (Melbourne, Sydney), the Netherlands (Amsterdam), Germany (Jena), Switzerland (Basel, Zurich), Austria (Vienna), Denmark (Copenhagen), Singapore, and Hong Kong (Pok Fu Lam). Each site has an established early psychosis clinical service that conducts research with UHR clients. From 1995 to 2006 participants were recruited for UHR research studies at the Melbourne site only (N = 398). These

Sample characteristics

Table 2 presents baseline demographic and clinical characteristics for each of the four risk groups. As illustrated, the APS-only group were, on average, younger at baseline than Trait-only (p < 0.001) and Trait + APS (p = 0.018) and any BLIPS (p = 0.026) individuals. Groups also differed in terms of year recruited into the study (baseline year: 1995–1999, 2000–2006, 2010–2013) largely driven by a decline in any BLIPS and an increase in APS-only in later years (see Fig. 1 and Table 2). Consequently,

Discussion

In recent years the criteria that define UHR groups have been called into question due to differences observed between these groups in transition risk (Fusar-Poli et al., 2015, Schultze-Lutter et al., 2015). At the same time, it has become evident that as a clinical entity UHR status reflects more than simply a marker of psychosis risk, and may be more aptly considered a transdiagnostic risk state signifying the need for clinical care (van Os and Guloksuz, 2017). The present study thus aimed to

Funding

This work was funded by the Colonial Foundation Philanthropic Trust; Stanley Medical Research Institute (#07TGF-1102 f), and National Health and Medical Research Council Program Grant (#566529 and #350241). The Authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study.

Conflict of interest

The Authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study.

Acknowledgments

The authors would especially like to thank the participants of all the studies and the researchers involved in the original research studies.

References (47)

  • K.N. Thompson et al.

    Stress and HPA-axis functioning in young people at ultra high risk for psychosis

    J. Psychiatr. Res.

    (2007)
  • M. van der Gaag et al.

    Preventing a first episode of psychosis: meta-analysis of randomized controlled prevention trials of 12 month and longer-term follow-ups

    Schizophr. Res.

    (2013)
  • A.R. Yung et al.

    Psychosis prediction: 12-month follow up of a high-risk (“prodromal”) group

    Schizophr. Res.

    (2003)
  • A.R. Yung et al.

    Risk factors for psychosis in an ultra high-risk group: psychopathology and clinical features

    Schizophr. Res.

    (2004)
  • American Psychiatric Association

    Diagnostic Stastistical Manual of Mental Disorders

    (1994)
  • N.C. Andreasen

    Negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Definition and reliability

    Arch. Gen. Psychiatry

    (1982)
  • N.C. Andreasen et al.

    The Comprehensive Assessment Of Symptoms and History (CASH). An instrument for assessing diagnosis and psychopathology

    Arch. Gen. Psychiatry

    (1992)
  • G.E. Berger et al.

    Neuroprotective effects of low-dose lithium in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis. A longitudinal MRI/MRS study

    Curr. Pharm. Des.

    (2012)
  • M. First et al.

    Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders. Research Version

    (2002)
  • M. First et al.

    Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders, (SCID-II)

    (1997)
  • M.B. First et al.

    The structured clinical interview for DSM–III–R personality disorders (SCI-D–II)

    J. Personal. Disord.

    (1995)
  • P. Fusar-Poli et al.

    The psychosis high-risk state: a comprehensive state-of-the-art review

    JAMA Psychiatry

    (2013)
  • P. Fusar-Poli et al.

    Heterogeneity of psychosis risk within individuals at clinical high risk: a meta-analytical stratification

    JAMA Psychiatry

    (2015)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    Shared senior authorship.

    View full text