Transition rates from schizotypal disorder to psychotic disorder for first-contact patients included in the OPUS trial. A randomized clinical trial of integrated treatment and standard treatment

Nordentoft, Merete; Thorup, Anne; Petersen, Lone; Øhlenschlæger, Johan; Melau, Marianne; Christensen, Thomas; Krarup, Gertrud; Jørgensen, Per; Jeppesen, Pia

doi:10.1016/j.schres.2006.01.002

Cited by 147 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study found that female sex was a significant predictor of conversion to affective psychosis twoyears after ascertainment. In addition, a second study (Nordentoft et al, 2006) found that, among young adults with a diagnosis of schizotypal disorder, males had a four-fold risk for conversion to schizophrenia one-year after enrollment when compared to females. However, the findings of this study may not be directly comparable to a UHR population since diagnosis of schizotypal disorder allows for transient symptoms at the fully psychotic level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in symptoms, functioning and social support in patients at ultra-high risk for developing a psychotic disorder

Willhite

Niendam

Bearden

et al. 2008

Schizophrenia Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender differences have been widely observed in the clinical presentation, psychosocial functioning and course of illness in first episode and chronic patients suffering from schizophrenia. However, little is known about gender differences in the psychosis prodrome. This study investigated gender differences in symptoms, functioning and social support in individuals at ultra-high-risk for developing a psychotic disorder. Sixty-eight ultra-high-risk patients were assessed at baseline, and twenty-seven returned for follow-up assessments approximately six and twelve months later. Clinical symptoms and functioning were assessed by clinical interview; social support was measured using a self-report questionnaire. There were no gender differences in demographic variables, symptoms or functioning at baseline. Males were found to have significantly higher levels of negative symptoms and marginally lower levels of functioning when baseline and follow-up time points were considered collectively. Additionally, females reported higher levels of social support at baseline. Differences in negative symptoms were found to mediate differences in functioning between male and female patients. This study suggests that gender based differences in symptom presentation and functional outcome may predate conversion to psychosis. Follow-up studies should examine the relationship between symptoms, functioning and social support in this population.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in symptoms, functioning and social support in patients at ultra-high risk for developing a psychotic disorder

Willhite

Niendam

Bearden

et al. 2008

Schizophrenia Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three found a significant difference in the transition to psychosis between intervention and control groups Morrison et al, 2004;Nordentoft et al, 2006), whereas the fourth found a non-significant difference but with a trend in the direction of medication being effective. Two of the three studies which found a difference used a combination of psychosocial and pharmacological intervention Nordentoft et al, 2006) whereas Morrison et al used CBT alone (Morrison et al, 2004). In contrast McGlashan et al was the only study to use a pharmacological intervention alone.…”

Section: E Killackex Et Almentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Four studies have examined the effectiveness of various strategies in reducing transition to psychosis Morrison et al, 2004;Nordentoft et al, 2006). Three found a significant difference in the transition to psychosis between intervention and control groups Morrison et al, 2004;Nordentoft et al, 2006), whereas the fourth found a non-significant difference but with a trend in the direction of medication being effective.…”

Section: E Killackex Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Psychosis: Where we've been, where we still have to go

Killackey¹,

Yung²,

McGorry³

2007

Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Early intervention in psychosis, while not a new concept, has seen great development over the last 15 years. Growth in this time has occurred in a number of areas and has attracted a broad coalition of researchers, consumers, clinicians, carers and policy makers. In this time the concept of early intervention has moved from the fringes to the mainstream of clinical approaches to psychosis in many places, and is doing so in even more. After a decade and a half, this paper reviews some of the key issues that have been addressed and points to areas where further growth and reform is still required. Some issues that have created controversy are examined here including pre-onset intervention and identification, the relationship of duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) to outcome and whether or not early intervention is an effective and economically viable model. Areas that are only now developing or which require further investigation are considered, including the concept of stages of mental illness and concomitant interventions, closing the efficacy-effectiveness gap and an increased focus on functioning as part of the recovery process. Early intervention in psychosis started as a reformist movement, agitating for change from outside the mainstream. Change has occurred and now early intervention is part of the mainstream approach to psychotic illness. In order to continue to develop, while enjoying the benefits of being a mainstream intervention, early intervention must not stray too far from its reformist roots.

show abstract

“…However, there was little done to prove that the use of a multidisciplinary approach involving several professions, provided any clinical advantage to the patients. Later, with the development of Early Intervention in psychosis teams, it was possible to test the hypothesis that an Assertive Early Intervention multidisciplinary team provided better outcomes than treatment as usual in a standard multidisciplinary community mental health team (Agius 2007, Craig 2004, Nordentoft 2006). However this begs the fundamental question as to whether the use of a multidisciplinary approach actually gives any specific advantage to the patient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%