Dataset Information

What Causes the Onset of Psychosis in Individuals at Clinical High Risk? A Meta-analysis of Risk and Protective Factors.

ABSTRACT: Twenty percent of individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) develop the disorder within 2 years. Extensive research has explored the factors that differentiate those who develop psychosis and those who do not, but the results are conflicting. The current systematic review and meta-analysis comprehensively addresses the consistency and magnitude of evidence for non-purely genetic risk and protective factors associated with the risk of developing psychosis in CHR-P individuals. Random effects meta-analyses, standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) were used, in combination with an established stratification of evidence that assesses the association of each factor and the onset of psychotic disorders (from class I, convincing evidence to class IV weak evidence), while controlling for several types of biases. A total of 128 original controlled studies relating to 26 factors were retrieved. No factors showed class I-convincing evidence. Two further factors were associated with class II-highly suggestive evidence: attenuated positive psychotic symptoms (SMD = 0.348, 95% CI: 0.280, 0.415) and global functioning (SMD = -0.291, 95% CI: -0.370, -0.211). There was class III-suggestive evidence for negative psychotic symptoms (SMD = 0.393, 95% CI: 0.317, 0.469). There was either class IV-weak or no evidence for all other factors. Our findings suggest that despite the large number of putative risk factors investigated in the literature, only attenuated positive psychotic symptoms, global functioning, and negative psychotic symptoms show suggestive evidence or greater for association with transition to psychosis. The current findings may inform the refinement of clinical prediction models and precision medicine in this field.

SUBMITTER: Oliver D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6942149 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What Causes the Onset of Psychosis in Individuals at Clinical High Risk? A Meta-analysis of Risk and Protective Factors.

Oliver Dominic D Reilly Thomas J TJ Baccaredda Boy Ottone O Petros Natalia N Davies Cathy C Borgwardt Stefan S McGuire Philip P Fusar-Poli Paolo P

Schizophrenia bulletin 20200101 1

Twenty percent of individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) develop the disorder within 2 years. Extensive research has explored the factors that differentiate those who develop psychosis and those who do not, but the results are conflicting. The current systematic review and meta-analysis comprehensively addresses the consistency and magnitude of evidence for non-purely genetic risk and protective factors associated with the risk of developing psychosis in CHR-P individuals. Rando ...[more]

PMID: 31219164

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe 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).ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionsClinical 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.

Project description:ImportanceEstimating the current likelihood of transitioning from a clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) to psychosis holds paramount importance for preventive care and applied research.ObjectiveTo quantitatively examine the consistency and magnitude of transition risk to psychosis in individuals at CHR-P.Data sourcesPubMed and Web of Science databases until November 1, 2020. Manual search of references from previous articles.Study selectionLongitudinal studies reporting transition risks in individuals at CHR-P.Data extraction and synthesisMeta-analysis compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines; independent data extraction, manually and through digitalization of Kaplan-Meier curves.Main outcome and measuresPrimary effect size was cumulative risk of transition to psychosis at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, and more than 4 years' follow-up, estimated using the numbers of individuals at CHR-P transitioning to psychosis at each time point. These analyses were complemented by meta-analytical Kaplan-Meier curves and speed of transition to psychosis (hazard rate). Random-effects meta-analysis, between-study heterogeneity analysis, study quality assessment, and meta-regressions were conducted.ResultsA total of 130 studies and 9222 individuals at CHR-P were included. The mean (SD) age was 20.3 (4.4) years, and 5100 individuals (55.3%) were male. The cumulative transition risk was 0.09 (95% CI, 0.07-0.10; k = 37; n = 6485) at 0.5 years, 0.15 (95% CI, 0.13-0.16; k = 53; n = 7907) at 1 year, 0.20 (95% CI, 0.17-0.22; k = 30; n = 5488) at 1.5 years, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.17-0.22; k = 44; n = 7351) at 2 years, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.21-0.29; k = 19; n = 3114) at 2.5 years, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.22-0.29; k = 29; n = 4029) at 3 years, 0.27 (95% CI, 0.23-0.30; k = 16; n = 2926) at 4 years, and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.20-0.37; k = 14; n = 2301) at more than 4 years. The cumulative Kaplan-Meier transition risk was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.08-0.09; n = 4860) at 0.5 years, 0.14 (95% CI, 0.13-0.15; n = 3408) at 1 year, 0.17 (95% CI, 0.16-0.19; n = 2892) at 1.5 years, 0.20 (95% CI, 0.19-0.21; n = 2357) at 2 years, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.23-0.26; n = 1444) at 2.5 years, 0.27 (95% CI, 0.25-0.28; n = 1029) at 3 years, 0.28 (95% CI, 0.26-0.29; n = 808) at 3.5 years, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.27-0.30; n = 737) at 4 years, and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.32-0.38; n = 114) at 10 years. The hazard rate only plateaued at 4 years' follow-up. Meta-regressions showed that a lower proportion of female individuals (β = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.01) and a higher proportion of brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms (β = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.03) were associated with an increase in transition risk. Heterogeneity across the studies was high (I2 range, 77.91% to 95.73%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis, 25% of individuals at CHR-P developed psychosis within 3 years. Transition risk continued increasing in the long term. Extended clinical monitoring and preventive care may be beneficial in this patient population.

Project description:ImportanceNeurocognitive functioning is a potential biomarker to advance detection, prognosis, and preventive care for individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P). The current consistency and magnitude of neurocognitive functioning in individuals at CHR-P are undetermined.ObjectiveTo provide an updated synthesis of evidence on the consistency and magnitude of neurocognitive functioning in individuals at CHR-P.Data sourcesWeb of Science database, Cochrane Central Register of Reviews, and Ovid/PsycINFO and trial registries up to July 1, 2020.Study selectionMultistep literature search compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology performed by independent researchers to identify original studies reporting on neurocognitive functioning in individuals at CHR-P.Data extraction and synthesisIndependent researchers extracted the data, clustering the neurocognitive tasks according to 7 Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) domains and 8 CHR-P domains. Random-effect model meta-analyses, assessment of publication biases and study quality, and meta-regressions were conducted.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary effect size measure was Hedges g of neurocognitive functioning in individuals at CHR-P (1) compared with healthy control (HC) individuals or (2) compared with individuals with first-episode psychosis (FEP) or (3) stratified for the longitudinal transition to psychosis.ResultsA total of 78 independent studies were included, consisting of 5162 individuals at CHR-P (mean [SD; range] age, 20.2 [3.3; 12.0-29.0] years; 2529 [49.0%] were female), 2865 HC individuals (mean [SD; range] age, 21.1 [3.6; 12.6-29.2] years; 1490 [52.0%] were female), and 486 individuals with FEP (mean [SD; range] age, 23.0 [2.0; 19.1-26.4] years; 267 [55.9%] were female). Compared with HC individuals, individuals at CHR-P showed medium to large deficits on the Stroop color word reading task (g = -1.17; 95% CI, -1.86 to -0.48), Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (g = -0.86; 95% CI, -1.43 to -0.28), digit symbol coding test (g = -0.74; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.29), Brief Assessment of Cognition Scale Symbol Coding (g = -0.67; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.39), University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (g = -0.55; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.12), Hinting Task (g = -0.53; 95% CI, -0.77 to -0.28), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (g = -0.50; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.21), California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) (g = -0.50; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.36), and National Adult Reading Test (g = -0.52; 95% CI, -1.01 to -0.03). Individuals at CHR-P were less impaired than individuals with FEP. Longitudinal transition to psychosis from a CHR-P state was associated with medium to large deficits in the CVLT task (g = -0.58; 95% CI, -1.12 to -0.05). Meta-regressions found significant effects for age and education on processing speed.Conclusions and relevanceFindings from this meta-analysis support neurocognitive dysfunction as a potential detection and prognostic biomarker in individuals at CHR-P. These findings may advance clinical research and inform preventive approaches.

Project description:This study aims to meta-analytically characterize the presence and magnitude of within-group variability across neurocognitive functioning in young people at Clinical High-Risk for psychosis (CHR-P) and comparison groups. Multistep, PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review (PROSPERO-CRD42020192826) of the Web of Science database, Cochrane Central Register of Reviews and Ovid/PsycINFO and trial registries up to July 1, 2020. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the NOS for cohort and cross-sectional studies. Original studies reporting neurocognitive functioning in individuals at CHR-P compared to healthy controls (HC) or first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients were included. The primary outcome was the random-effect meta-analytic variability ratios (VR). Secondary outcomes included the coefficient of variation ratios (CVR). Seventy-eight studies were included, relating to 5162 CHR-P individuals, 2865 HC and 486 FEP. The CHR-P group demonstrated higher variability compared to HC (in descending order of magnitude) in visual memory (VR: 1.41, 95% CI 1.02-1.94), executive functioning (VR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.18-1.45), verbal learning (VR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.15-1.45), premorbid IQ (VR: 1.27, 95% CI 1.09-1.49), processing speed (VR: 1.26, 95% CI 1.07-1.48), visual learning (VR: 1.20, 95% CI 1.07-1.34), and reasoning and problem solving (VR: 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.34). In the CVR analyses the variability in CHR-P population remains in the previous neurocognitive domains and emerged in attention/vigilance, working memory, social cognition, and visuospatial ability. The CHR-P group transitioning to psychosis showed greater VR in executive functioning compared to those not developing psychosis and compared to FEP groups. Clinical high risk for psychosis subjects shows increased variability in neurocognitive performance compared to HC. The main limitation of this study is the validity of the VR and CVR as an index of variability which has received debate. This finding should be explored by further individual-participant data research and support precision medicine approaches.

Dataset Information

What Causes the Onset of Psychosis in Individuals at Clinical High Risk? A Meta-analysis of Risk and Protective Factors.

Publications

What Causes the Onset of Psychosis in Individuals at Clinical High Risk? A Meta-analysis of Risk and Protective Factors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets