Magenta B. Simmons

Long-term Follow-up of a Group at Ultra High Risk (“Prodromal”) for Psychosis: The PACE 400 Study

IMPORTANCE The ultra high-risk (UHR) criteria were introduced to prospectively identify patients at high risk of psychotic disorder. Although the short-term outcome of UHR patients has been well researched, the long-term outcome is not known. OBJECTIVE To assess the rate and baseline predictors of transition to psychotic disorder in UHR patients up to 15 years after study entry. DESIGN Follow-up study of a cohort of UHR patients recruited to participate in research studies between 1993 and 2006. SETTING The Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation (PACE) clinic, a specialized service for UHR patients in Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS Four hundred sixteen UHR patients previously seen at the PACE clinic. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Transition to psychotic disorder, as measured using the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale/Comprehensive Assessment of Symptoms and History, or state public mental health records. RESULTS During the time to follow-up (2.4-14.9 years after presentation), 114 of the 416 participants were known to have developed a psychotic disorder. The highest risk for transition was within the first 2 years of entry into the service, but individuals continued to be at risk up to 10 years after initial referral. The overall rate of transition was estimated to be 34.9% over a 10-year period (95% CI, 28.7%-40.6%). Factors associated with transition included year of entry into the clinic, duration of symptoms before clinic entry, baseline functioning, negative symptoms, and disorders of thought content. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The UHR patients are at long-term risk for psychotic disorder, with the highest risk in the first 2 years. Services should aim to follow up patients for at least this period, with the possibility to return for care after this time. Individuals with a long duration of symptoms and poor functioning at the time of referral may need closer monitoring. Interventions to improve functioning and detect help-seeking UHR patients earlier also may be indicated.

Experience of trauma and conversion to psychosis in an ultra-high-risk (prodromal) group.

Bechdolf A, Thompson A, Nelson B, Cotton S, Simmons MB, Amminger GP, Leicester S, Francey SM, McNab C, Krstev H, Sidis A, McGorry PD, Yung AR. Experience of trauma and conversion to psychosis in an ultra‐high‐risk (prodromal) group.

J Clin Psychiatry/Randomized Controlled Trial of Interventions for Young People at Ultra-High Risk of Psychosis: Twelve-Month Outcome

OBJECTIVE The ultra-high risk clinical phenotype is associated with substantial distress and functional impairment and confers a greatly enhanced risk for transition to full-threshold psychosis. A range of interventions aimed at relieving current symptoms and functional impairment and reducing the risk of transition to psychosis has shown promising results, but the optimal type and sequence of intervention remain to be established. The aim of this study was to determine which intervention was most effective at preventing transition to psychosis: cognitive therapy plus low-dose risperidone, cognitive therapy plus placebo, or supportive therapy plus placebo. METHOD A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 12-month trial of low-dose risperidone, cognitive therapy, or supportive therapy was conducted in a cohort of 115 clients of the Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation Clinic, a specialized service for young people at ultra-high risk of psychosis located in Melbourne, Australia. Recruitment commenced in August 2000 and ended in May 2006. The primary outcome measure was transition to full-threshold psychosis, defined a priori as frank psychotic symptoms occurring at least daily for 1 week or more and assessed using the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States. Secondary outcome measures were psychiatric symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life. RESULTS The estimated 12-month transition rates were as follows: cognitive therapy + risperidone, 10.7%; cognitive therapy + placebo, 9.6%; and supportive therapy + placebo, 21.8%. While there were no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups in transition rates (log-rank test P = .60), all 3 groups improved substantially during the trial, particularly in terms of negative symptoms and overall functioning. CONCLUSIONS The lower than expected, essentially equivalent transition rates in all 3 groups fail to provide support for the first-line use of antipsychotic medications in patients at ultra-high risk of psychosis, and an initial approach with supportive therapy is likely to be effective and carries fewer risks.

Randomized controlled trial of interventions for young people at ultra-high risk of psychosis: study design and baseline characteristics

Objective: Intervention during the pre-psychotic period of illness holds the potential of delaying or even preventing the onset of a full-threshold disorder, or at least of reducing the impact of such a disorder if it does develop. The first step in realizing this aim was achieved more than 10 years ago with the development and validation of criteria for the identification of young people at ultra-high risk (UHR) of psychosis. Results of three clinical trials have been published that provide mixed support for the effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions in preventing the onset of psychotic disorder. Method: The present paper describes a fourth study that has now been undertaken in which young people who met UHR criteria were randomized to one of three treatment groups: cognitive therapy plus risperidone (CogTher + Risp: n = 43); cognitive therapy plus placebo (CogTher + Placebo: n = 44); and supportive counselling + placebo (Supp + Placebo; n = 28). A fourth group of young people who did not agree to randomization were also followed up (monitoring: n = 78). Baseline characteristics of participants are provided. Results and conclusion: The present study improves on the previous studies because treatment was provided for 12 months and the independent contributions of psychological and pharmacological treatments in preventing transition to psychosis in the UHR cohort and on levels of psychopathology and functioning can be directly compared. Issues associated with recruitment and randomization are discussed.

Shared decision-making: benefits, barriers and current opportunities for application.

Objective: Patient preference and involvement are two important aspects for many psychiatric treatment decisions. Shared decision-making (SDM) has been proposed as the optimal model to include patient preferences and involve patients in such decisions. Decision-making tools called decision aids (DA) are the most common application of SDM. DAs have been demonstrated to increase patients’ knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and reduce the proportion of patients who are passive in the decision-making process or remain undecided. Unfortunately, there are few DAs available for treatment decisions for psychiatric disorders and implementing SDM can be a challenge for mental health professionals. There are also issues unique to psychiatry related to the development and implementation of DAs that need consideration. Despite this, mental health professionals can and do still employ SDM techniques. This article offers an overview of the skills required to implement a SDM model and the resources currently available. Conclusions: The core features of SDM are advocated for in clinical guidelines, but more resources are needed to ensure these recommendations are implemented in practice. In particular, the benefits of freely available DAs developed according to international standards need to be assessed for suitability and effectiveness.

Neurocognitive predictors of transition to psychosis: medium- to long-term findings from a sample at ultra-high risk for psychosis

BACKGROUND Individuals at ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis show reduced neurocognitive performance across domains but it is unclear which reductions are associated with transition to frank psychosis. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in baseline neurocognitive performance between UHR participants with (UHR-P) and without transition to psychosis (UHR-NP) and a healthy control (HC) group and examine neurocognitive predictors of transition over the medium to long term. METHOD A sample of 325 UHR participants recruited consecutively from the Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation (PACE) Clinic in Melbourne and 66 HCs completed a neurocognitive assessment at baseline. The UHR group was followed up between 2.39 and 14.86 (median = 6.45) years later. Cox regression was used to investigate candidate neurocognitive predictors of psychosis onset. RESULTS The UHR group performed more poorly than the HC group across a range of neurocognitive domains but only performance on digit symbol coding and picture completion differed between the groups. The risk of transition was only significantly associated with poorer performance on visual reproduction [hazard ratio (HR) 0.919, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.876-0.965, p = 0.001] and matrix reasoning (HR 0.938, 95% CI 0.883-0.996, p = 0.037). These remained significant even after controlling for psychopathology at baseline. CONCLUSIONS This study is the longest follow-up of an UHR sample to date. UHR status was associated with poorer neurocognitive performance compared to HCs on some tasks. Cognition at identification as UHR was not a strong predictor of risk for transition to psychosis. The results suggests the need to include more experimental paradigms that isolate discrete cognitive processes to better understand neurocognition at this early stage of illness.

Experiences of treatment decision making for young people diagnosed with depressive disorders: a qualitative study in primary care and specialist mental health settings

BackgroundClinical guidelines advocate for the inclusion of young people experiencing depression as well as their caregivers in making decisions about their treatment. Little is known, however, about the degree to which these groups are involved, and whether they want to be. This study sought to explore the experiences and desires of young people and their caregivers in relation to being involved in treatment decision making for depressive disorders.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were carried out with ten young people and five caregivers from one primary care and one specialist mental health service about their experiences and beliefs about treatment decision making. Interviews were audio taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsExperiences of involvement for clients varied and were influenced by clients themselves, clinicians and service settings. For caregivers, experiences of involvement were more homogenous. Desire for involvement varied across clients, and within clients over time; however, most clients wanted to be involved at least some of the time. Both clients and caregivers identified barriers to involvement.ConclusionsThis study supports clinical guidelines that advocate for young people diagnosed with depressive disorders to be involved in treatment decision making. In order to maximise engagement, involvement in treatment decision making should be offered to all clients. Involvement should be negotiated explicitly and repeatedly, as desire for involvement may change over time. Caregiver involvement should be negotiated on an individual basis; however, all caregivers should be supported with information about mental disorders and treatment options.

SSRIs and depression in children and adolescents: the imperative for shared decision-making.

Objective: In the context of controversy and uncertainty about the role of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for the treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents, we consider the evidence of the benefits and risks of this class of medication and the possible role of shared decision-making as a practical way to guide clinicians, young people and their families through treatment decisions. Conclusion: We suggest that there is an imperative for clinicians to engage young people in a process of shared decision-making, given the uncertainties about SSRI medication in this age group. Shared decision-making provides a way for clinicians to engage young people and ensure they receive the treatment required for this disorder, the potential outcomes of which are severe.

Does specific psychopathology predict development of psychosis in ultra high-risk (UHR) patients?

Objectives: Studies have attempted to identify additional risk factors within the group identified as ‘ultra high risk’ (UHR) for developing psychotic disorders in order to characterise those at highest risk. However, these studies have often neglected clinical symptom types as additional risk factors. We aimed to investigate the relationship between baseline clinical psychotic or psychotic-like symptoms and the subsequent transition to a psychotic disorder in a UHR sample. Method: A retrospective ‘case–control’ methodology was used. We identified all individuals from a UHR clinic who had subsequently developed a psychotic disorder (cases) and compared these to a random sample of individuals from the clinic who did not become psychotic within the sampling time frame (controls). The sample consisted of 120 patients (60 cases, 60 controls). An audit tool was used to identify clinical symptoms reported at entry to the clinic (baseline) using the clinical file. Diagnosis at transition was assessed using the Operational Criteria for Psychotic Illness (OPCRIT) computer program. The relationship between transition to a psychotic disorder and baseline symptoms was explored using survival analysis. Results: Presence of thought disorder, any delusions and elevated mood significantly predicted transition to a psychotic disorder. When other symptoms were adjusted for, only the presence of elevated mood significantly predicted subsequent transition (hazard ratio 2.69, p = 0.002). Thought disorder was a predictor of transition to a schizophrenia-like psychotic disorder (hazard ratio 3.69, p = 0.008). Conclusions: Few individual clinical symptoms appear to be predictive of transition to a psychotic disorder in the UHR group. Clinicians should be cautious about the use of clinical profile alone in such individuals when determining who is at highest risk.

What are Specialist Mental Health Clinician Attitudes to Guideline Recommendations for the Treatment of Depression in Young People

Objectives: We sought to examine potential barriers to the use of evidence-based guidelines for youth depression in a tertiary specialist mental health service, as part of an initiative to implement evidence based practice within the service. Methods: This was a qualitative study adopting a social constructionist perspective using focus groups. The focus groups, conducted with all clinicians (medical and allied health), were audiotaped, transcribed and thematic analysis was undertaken. Clinicians were asked about the barriers to implementing four key recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Results: Barriers existed at (i) the individual clinician level; (ii) the clinical level in terms of the presentation of young people; and (iii) the service level. The key individual clinician level barrier was a stated belief that the guidelines were not relevant to the young people presenting to the service, with little evidence to guide practice. Related, the main barrier with regard to the clinical presentation was the severity and complexity of this presentation, often making the delivery of interventions like cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) difficult. At the service level, a lack of integration with primary and secondary level care meant sequencing interventions according to guideline recommendations was difficult. Conclusions: There is a clear imperative to develop the evidence base to ensure that effective treatments for young people aged up to 25 years with severe and complex disorders that include comorbid conditions, suicide risk and psychosocial difficulties are investigated and disseminated. Furthermore, this work has highlighted the need for greater investment in models of care that ensure integration between existing primary and secondary care and enhanced specialist early intervention mental health services for young people.