Background
Age effects may be important for improving models for the prediction of conversion to psychosis for individuals in the clinical high risk (CHR) state. This study aimed to explore whether adolescent CHR individuals (ages 9–17 years) differ significantly from adult CHR individuals (ages 18–45 years) in terms of conversion rates and predictors.
Method
Consecutive CHR individuals (N = 517) were assessed for demographic and clinical characteristics and followed up for 3 years. Individuals with CHR were classified as adolescent (n = 244) or adult (n = 273) groups. Age-specific prediction models of psychosis were generated separately using Cox regression.
Results
Similar conversion rates were found between age groups; 52 out of 216 (24.1%) adolescent CHR individuals and 55 out of 219 (25.1%) CHR adults converted to psychosis. The conversion outcome was best predicted by negative symptoms compared to other clinical variables in CHR adolescents (χ2 = 7.410, p = 0.006). In contrast, positive symptoms better predicted conversion in CHR adults (χ2 = 6.585, p = 0.01).
Conclusions
Adolescent and adult CHR individuals may require a different approach to early identification and prediction. These results can inform the development of more precise prediction models based on age-specific approaches.
The current concept of clinical high-risk(CHR) of psychosis relies heavily on “below-threshold” (i.e. attenuated or limited and intermittent) psychotic positive phenomena as predictors of the risk for future progression to “above-threshold” positive symptoms (aka “transition” or “conversion”). Positive symptoms, even at attenuated levels are often treated with antipsychotics (AP) to achieve clinical stabilization and mitigate the psychopathological severity. The goal of this study is to contextually examine clinicians’ decision to prescribe AP, CHR individuals’ decision to take AP and psychosis conversion risk in relation to prodromal symptoms profiles. CHR individuals (n = 600) were recruited and followed up for 2 years between 2016 and 2021. CHR individuals were referred to the participating the naturalistic follow-up study, which research procedure was independent of the routine clinical treatment. Clinical factors from the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS) and global assessment of function (GAF) were profiled via exploratory factor analysis (EFA), then the extracted factor structure was used to investigate the relationship of prodromal psychopathology with clinicians’ decisions to AP-prescription, CHR individuals’ decisions to AP-taking and conversion to psychosis. A total of 427(71.2%) CHR individuals were prescribed AP at baseline, 532(88.7%) completed the 2-year follow-up, 377(377/532, 70.9%) were taken AP at least for 2 weeks during the follow-up. EFA identified six factors (Factor-1-Negative symptoms, Factor-2-Global functions, Factor-3-Disorganized communication & behavior, Factor-4-General symptoms, Factor-5-Odd thoughts, and Factor-6-Distorted cognition & perception). Positive symptoms (Factor-5 and 6) and global functions (Factor-2) factors were significant predictors for clinicians’ decisions to AP-prescription and CHR individuals’ decisions to assume AP, whereas negative symptoms (Factor-1) and global functions (Factor-2) factors predicted conversion. While decisions to AP-prescription, decisions to AP-taking were associated to the same factors (positive symptoms and global functions), only one of those was predictive of conversion, i.e. global functions. The other predictor of conversion, i.e. negative symptoms, did not seem to be contemplated both on the clinician and patients’ sides. Overall, the findings indicated that a realignment in the understanding of AP usage is warranted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.