Antipsychotics and Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome: Transdiagnostic assessment and discontinuation strategies

Lack of transparency on baseline pharmacological treatments in Clinical High-Risk for psychosis (CHR-P) may degrade precision: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The field of Clinical High-Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P) is a dynamic area within contemporary psychiatry and serves as a crucial testing ground for precision prognostic models. Nonetheless, some foundational aspects remain inadequately conceptualized and consequently not transparently reported, such as baseline pharmacotherapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to August 31, 2024. Eligible studies included CHR-P samples, reported numeric data on outcomes at follow-up, and examined the transition to psychosis as an outcome. Data extraction adhered to PRISMA guidelines, focusing on baseline pharmacological exposure to antipsychotics, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and mood stabilizers. A total of 95 studies were analyzed. The majority of studies (96.8 %) explicitly stated whether baseline exposure to antipsychotics was allowed as part of the inclusion criteria. However, actual baseline exposure to antipsychotics was quantified in only 60 % of these studies. Exposure to non-antipsychotic psychoactive therapies was reported in only a fraction of the studies (36.8 % for antidepressants, 16.8 % for benzodiazepines, and 14.7 % for mood stabilizers). In CHR-P longitudinal studies, the meta-analytic proportions of self-disclosed baseline pharmacological exposure ranged from 23.5 % to 24.5 % for antipsychotics, 28.5 % to 30.6 % for antidepressants, 11.2 % to 14.6 % for benzodiazepines, and 5.6 % to 5.9 % for mood stabilizers. Overall, a non negligible fraction of CHR-P participants is already under psychoactive pharmacological treatment at enrollment. The lack of consistent transparency in this respect may limit the effectiveness of prognostic models. Improved reporting practices are necessary to enhance precision in preventive psychiatry.

Commentary: Response - Building on existing knowledge and redefining rather than abandoning the well-established 'clinical high risk for psychosis' prevention paradigm: Commentary on Tiffin and Kelleher "Time to abandon the 'clinical high risk state for psychosis" (CHR-P) concept in adolescence?"

We appreciate the commentary by Tiffin and Kelleher on our systematic review and meta-analysis. The CHR-P paradigm remains one of the most established preventive approaches in mental health. While concerns have been raised regarding the clinical utility of the CHR-P paradigm, its implementation in specialized services worldwide supports its relevance. These services provide evidence-based interventions, reducing unnecessary antipsychotic use and guiding treatment strategies. Tiffin and Kelleher's critique largely focuses on transition rates and age cutoffs. While we argue that transition rates in adolescents at CHR-P are significant, other outcomes need to be considered. Among others, negative symptoms are clinically significant in adolescents at CHR-P, impairing functioning and long-term outcomes. We think we should refine and improve the CHR-P paradigm rather than simply abandoning it. With advancements in precision medicine, we can improve risk stratification and tailor interventions to better serve individuals at risk. We can also expand the paradigm, so it supports other help-seeking adolescents at risk requiring transdiagnostic, developmentally sensitive interventions to prevent psychosis.

Clinical outcomes in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis who do not transition to psychosis: a meta-analysis

AIMS

The clinical outcomes of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR-P) who do not transition to psychosis are heterogeneous and inconsistently reported. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate longitudinally a wide range of outcomes in CHR-P individuals not developing psychosis.

METHODS

"Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" and "Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology"-compliant meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42021229212) searching original CHR-P longitudinal studies in PubMed and Web of Science databases up to 01/11/2021. As primary analysis, we evaluated the following outcomes within CHR-P non-transitioning individuals: (a) change in the severity of attenuated psychotic symptoms (Hedge's g); (b) change in the severity of negative psychotic symptoms (Hedge's g); (c) change in the severity of depressive symptoms (Hedge's g); (d) change in the level of functioning (Hedge's g); (e) frequency of remission (at follow-up). As a secondary analysis, we compared these outcomes in those CHR-P individuals who did not transition vs. those who did transition to psychosis at follow-up. We conducted random-effects model meta-analyses, sensitivity analyses, heterogeneity analyses, meta-regressions and publication bias assessment. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included (2756 CHR-P individuals, mean age = 20.4, 45.5% females). The mean duration of follow-up of the included studies was of 30.7 months. Primary analysis: attenuated psychotic symptoms [Hedges' g = 1.410, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.002-1.818]; negative psychotic symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.683, 95% CI 0.371-0.995); depressive symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.844, 95% CI 0.371-1.317); and functioning (Hedges' g = 0.776, 95% CI 0.463-1.089) improved in CHR-P non-transitioning individuals; 48.7% remitted at follow-up (95% CI 39.3-58.2%). Secondary analysis: attenuated psychotic symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.706, 95% CI 0.091-1.322) and functioning (Hedges' g = 0.623, 95% CI 0.375-0.871) improved in CHR-P individuals not-transitioning compared to those transitioning to psychosis, but there were no differences in negative or depressive symptoms or frequency of remission (p > 0.05). Older age was associated with higher improvements of attenuated psychotic symptoms (β = 0.225, p = 0.012); publication years were associated with a higher improvement of functioning (β = -0.124, p = 0.0026); a lower proportion of Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms was associated with higher frequencies of remission (β = -0.054, p = 0.0085). There was no metaregression impact for study continent, the psychometric instrument used, the quality of the study or proportion of females. The NOS scores were 4.4 ± 0.9, ranging from 3 to 6, revealing the moderate quality of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes improve in CHR-P individuals not transitioning to psychosis but only less than half remit over time. Sustained clinical attention should be provided in the longer term to monitor these outcomes.