Background and Objectives: The diagnosis of psychosis is a challenge for the scientific community, both in terms of its definition and treatment. Some recent studies have investigated the relationship between personality and psychosis onset to prevent or intervene early. Materials and Methods: Sixty young adults were recruited during their first access in 2019 near the Community Mental Health Service of Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy. The assessment included the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) (clinician scales), the 16-item Version of the Prodromal Questionnaire (PQ-16), the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) (self-report), and a clinical session. Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS. Results: The results show a negative correlation between the Detachment domain and the GAF scores. Correlational analysis also highlights that all PID-5 domains, except for Antagonism, have positive correlations with high scores in the PQ-16. The multivariate analysis of variance showed that patients diagnosed with versus without a psychotic disorder significantly differed on Detachment, Antagonism and Psychoticism PID-5 domains. Conclusions: The involvement of the personality construct in psychopathological development is displayed. In particular, higher levels of Detachment and Psychoticism can distinguish people who are more vulnerable to psychosis or who already have overt psychosis from those who do not have a psychotic predisposition. The study highlights the fundamental role of personality traits, emerging from PID-5, to distinguish young adults at risk of onset.

Treatment in early intervention services (EIS) seems superior to treatment as usual on several outcomes, but the extent of heterogeneity in response is unclear. In this study, treatment response trajectories up to 2 years in firstepisode psychosis (FEP) patients enrolled in an Italian early intervention service (EIS) have been quantified. The 24-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was used to quantify treatment response up to 2 years in 129 participants. Conditional growth modeling and latent class growth analysis were used to test changes over time in the BPRS and separation into independent classes over time. Group differences were tested on socio-demographic and clinical variables known to be related to outcome in psychosis. Scores on the BPRS showed a statistically significant decrease in overall scores across all tested models. Four trajectories were identified across 2 years. Most patients showed a progressive decrease in the BPRS scores; a scant fraction showed a more stepped decrease from very high levels of psychopathology. No potential predictor was statistically related to the time course of BPRS scores. Most patients that undergo treatment within an EIS are characterized by amelioration, but patients that have higher baseline scores of psychopathology require more intensive treatment.

Background The prescription of antipsychotics outside overt psychotic conditions remains controversial, especially in youth where it is relatively widespread. Furthermore, some studies seem to indicate that antipsychotic exposure in individuals at ultra‐high‐risk (UHR) for psychosis is associated with higher conversion rates. This study was set up to test whether the inter‐current prescription of antipsychotics in UHR patients was related to the psychometric threshold for a diagnosis of psychosis. Methods The 24‐item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was used to quantify treatment response up to 2 years in 125 UHR participants. Standard psychometric criteria were used to quantify conversion to psychosis. Kaplan‐Mayer and Cox proportional hazard survival analysis were applied to determine the impact of having or not received the prescription of an antipsychotic drug. Results Over the study period 30 (24%) subjects received the prescription of an antipsychotic. In the sample, there were 31 participants (25%) who had reached the psychometric threshold for conversion to psychosis after 2 years of treatment. UHR people who received a prescription of antipsychotics during the first 2 years of treatment were statistically more likely to reach the psychometric threshold for conversion to psychosis on the BPRS: Hazard ratio = 3.03 (95%CI: 1.49–6.16); p = .003. Conclusion This finding supports the hypothesis that the prescription of antipsychotics within UHR cohorts is to be considered a red flag for higher incipient risk of conversion to psychosis.

Anxiety Sensitivity (AS) is a transdiagnostic risk factor involved in the development and maintenance of different psychopathological conditions including anxiety disorders and psychosis. It consists of Physical Concerns (e.g., the belief that palpitations lead to a cardiac arrest), Social Concerns (the belief that observable anxiety reactions will elicit social rejection), and Cognitive Concerns (the belief that cognitive difficulties lead to mental incapacitation). No study investigated whether specific AS dimensions are related to At-Risk Mental States (ARMS). This study compared AS dimensions between young individuals with ARMS, patients after a recently occurred First-Episode Psychosis (FEP) and matched community controls. Based on models of ARMS and previous evidence, it was hypothesized that ARMS individuals have higher physical, social and cognitive concerns than FEP patients and controls. Thirty individuals with ARMS and 30 with FEP and 30 controls recruited from the general population completed the Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3 (ASI-3) and Penn State Worry Questionnaire. ARMS and FEP individuals had higher scores than controls on ASI-3 Cognitive Concerns [F(2,87)= 11.48, p<.001]. Individuals with ARMS had higher ASI-3 Physical Concerns scores than FEP patients [F(2,87)= 5.10, p<.01] and at a marginal significance level than controls. No between-group difference was found on Social Concerns. Higher ASI-3 Physical Concerns scores [B = -.324, Wald’s χ2(1) = 8.29, p < .01] and psychiatric comorbidities [B = -2.726, Wald’s χ2(1) = 9.33, p < .01] were significantly related to ARMS than FEP. Higher ASI-3 Social Concerns scores were related to FEP, despite at a marginal significance level [B =.213, Wald’s χ2(1) = 3.79, p = .052]. Interventions for AS Cognitive/Physical Concerns could be incorporated in the treatment of ARMS. A replication of the findings is required. Future longitudinal studies should examine whether Cognitive Concerns predict development of FEP in ARMS to improve early detection and prevention strategies.