Exploring the predictive power of the unspecific risk category of the Basel Screening Instrument for Psychosis.

AIM: Ultrahigh risk (UHR) criteria, consisting of brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms (BLIPS), attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS) and genetic risk and deterioration (GRD) syndrome are the most widely used criteria for assessing the clinical high-risk state for psychosis (CHR-P). The Basel Screening Instrument for Psychosis (BSIP) includes a further risk category, the unspecific risk category (URC). However, little is known about the predictive power of this risk category compared to other risk categories. METHODS: Two hundred CHR-P patients were detected as part of the Früherkennung von Psychosen (FePsy) study using the BSIP. Transition to psychosis was assessed in regular intervals for up to 7 years. RESULTS: Patients meeting only the URC criterion (n = 40) had a significantly lower risk of transition to psychosis than the UHR group (including BLIPS, APS and GRD) (HR 0.19 [0.05; 0.80] (P = 0.024). Furthermore, the URC only risk group had a lower transition risk than the APS without BLIPS group (P = 0.015) and a trendwise lower risk than the BLIPS group (P = 0.066). However, despite the lower transition risk in the URC only group, there were still two patients (5%) in this group with a later transition to psychosis. CONCLUSIONS: The URC includes patients who have a lower risk of transition than those included by the UHR categories and thereby increases the sensitivity of the BSIP. This offers the possibility of a stratified intervention, with these subjects receiving low intensity follow-up and treatment.

The role of vulnerability factors in individuals with an at-risk mental state of psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Several indicators of heightened vulnerability to psychosis and relevant stressors have been identified. However, it has rarely been studied prospectively to what extent these vulnerability factors are in fact more frequently present in individuals with an at-risk mental state for psychosis. Moreover, it remains unknown whether any of these contribute to the prediction of psychosis onset in at-risk mental state individuals. METHODS: There were 28 healthy controls, 86 first-episode psychosis patients and 127 at-risk mental state individuals recruited within the Basel "Früherkennung von Psychosen" project. Relative frequencies of selected vulnerability factors for psychosis were compared between healthy controls, psychosis patients, those at-risk mental state individuals with subsequent psychosis onset (n = 31) and those without subsequent psychosis onset (n = 55). Survival analyses were applied to determine associations between time to transition to psychosis and vulnerability factors in all 127 at-risk mental state individuals. RESULTS: The vulnerability factors/indicators such as "difficulties during school education or vocational training", "difficulties during employment", "being single", "difficulties with intimate relationships" and "being burdened with specific stressful situations" were more commonly found in the at-risk mental state and first-episode psychosis group than in healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: At-risk mental state and first-episode psychosis individuals more frequently present with vulnerability factors. Individual vulnerability factors appear, however, not to be predictive for an onset of psychosis.

Evidence for an agitated-aggressive syndrome predating the onset of psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Aggression and suicidality prior to the initiation of treatment are frequent phenomena in psychosis patients. Increased scores in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Excited Component (BPRS-EC) have been shown to predict involuntary treatment, aggression, and suicide in first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients. However, it is unclear if an agitated-aggressive syndrome as measured with the BPRS-EC is already present in at-risk mental state (ARMS). METHODS: BPRS-EC scores from 43 ARMS patients, 50 FEP patients, and 25 healthy controls (HC) were analyzed. Multivariate analyses were performed to review if group differences were mediated by potential confounders. In addition, the association of BPRS-EC scores with clinical variables was examined. RESULTS: BPRS-EC scores were significantly different across diagnostic groups (H(2)=22.1; p<.001), and post-hoc analyses showed significantly higher BPRS-EC scores for ARMS (p=.001) and for FEP patients (p<.001) compared to HC. Differences remained significant after controlling for gender, years of education, and intelligence. No significant differences emerged between ARMS and FEP patients. BPRS-EC was significantly correlated with lower intelligence (r=-.27; p=.008), reduced level of functioning (r=-.44; p<.001), and with smoking behavior (r=.22; p=.019). CONCLUSIONS: ARMS and FEP patients in our sample had significantly higher BPRS-EC scores compared to HC. This may constitute a correlate of an agitated-aggressive syndrome and an increased risk for aggression and suicidality.