The Danish High-Risk and Resilience Study-VIA 15 - A Study Protocol for the Third Clinical Assessment of a Cohort of 522 Children Born to Parents Diagnosed With Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder and Population-Based Controls.

Background: Children born to parents with severe mental illness have gained more attention during the last decades because of increasing evidence documenting that these children constitute a population with an increased risk of developing mental illness and other negative life outcomes. Because of high-quality research with cohorts of offspring with familial risk and increased knowledge about gene-environment interactions, early interventions and preventive strategies are now being developed all over the world. Adolescence is a period characterized by massive changes, both in terms of physical, neurologic, psychological, social, and behavioral aspects. It is also the period of life with the highest risk of experiencing onset of a mental disorder. Therefore, investigating the impact of various risk and resilience factors in adolescence is important. Methods: The Danish High-Risk and Resilience Study started data collection in 2012, where 522 7-year-old children were enrolled in the first wave of the study, the VIA 7 study. The cohort was identified through Danish registers based on diagnoses of the parents. A total of 202 children had a parent diagnosed with schizophrenia, 120 children had a parent diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and 200 children had parents without these diagnoses. At age 11 years, all children were assessed for the second time in the VIA 11 study, with a follow-up retention rate of 89%. A comprehensive assessment battery covering domains of psychopathology, neurocognition, social cognition and behavior, motor development and physical health, genetic analyses, attachment, stress, parental functioning, and home environment was carried out at each wave. Magnetic resonance imaging scans of the brain and electroencephalograms were included from age 11 years. This study protocol describes the third wave of assessment, the VIA 15 study, participants being 15 years of age and the full, 3-day-long assessment battery this time including also risk behavior, magnetoencephalography, sleep, and a white noise paradigm. Data collection started on May 1, 2021. Discussion: We will discuss the importance of longitudinal studies and cross-sectional data collection and how studies like this may inform us about unmet needs and windows of opportunity for future preventive interventions, early illness identification, and treatment in the future.

Assessment of Neurocognitive Functions in 7-Year-Old Children at Familial High Risk for Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder: The Danish High Risk and Resilience Study VIA 7.

Importance: Children at familial high risk of schizophrenia spectrum disorders (FHR-SZ) or bipolar disorder (FHR-BP) exhibit neurocognitive impairments. Large studies of neurocognition in young children at familial high risk at the same age are important to differentiate the pathophysiology and developmental trajectory of these 2 groups. Objective: To characterize neurocognitive functions in 7-year-old children with FHR-SZ or FHR-BP and a control population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite population-based cohort study collected data from January 1, 2013, to January 31, 2016, in the first wave of the Danish High Risk and Resilience Study VIA 7 at 2 university hospital research sites in Copenhagen and Aarhus using Danish registries. Participants (n = 514) included 197 children with FHR-SZ, 118 with FHR-BP, and 199 controls matched with the FHR-SZ group for age, sex, and municipality. Assessors were blinded to risk status. Exposures: Parents with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or neither diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Neurocognitive functions were measured across 23 tests. Four neurocognitive domains were derived by principal component analysis, including processing speed and working memory, verbal functions, executive and visuospatial functions, and declarative memory and attention. Results: A total of 514 children aged 7 years were included in the analysis (46.3% girls), consisting of 197 children with FHR-SZ (46.2% girls), 118 with FHR-BP (46.6% girls), and 199 controls (46.2% girls). Children with FHR-SZ were significantly impaired compared with controls on processing speed and working memory (Cohen d = 0.50; P < .001), executive and visuospatial functions (Cohen d = 0.28; P = .03), and declarative memory and attention (Cohen d = 0.29; P = .02). Compared with children with FHR-BP, children with FHR-SZ performed significantly poorer in processing speed and working memory (Cohen d = 0.40; P = .002), executive and visuospatial functions (Cohen d = 0.35; P = .008), and declarative memory and attention (Cohen d = 0.31; P = .03). Children with FHR-BP and controls did not differ. Conclusions and Relevance: Children with FHR-SZ had widespread neurocognitive impairments, supporting the hypothesis of neurocognitive functions as endophenotypes of schizophrenia. The absence of neurocognitive deficits in children with FHR-BP suggests distinct neurodevelopmental manifestations in these familial high-risk groups at this age. Early detection of children with FHR-SZ and cognitive impairments is warranted to investigate associations of neurocognition with transition to psychosis, add to the knowledge of their developmental pathophysiology, and inform early intervention programs.

Cost-effectiveness of early intervention in first-episode psychosis: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (the OPUS study).

BACKGROUND: Information about the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes for first-episode psychosis is limited. AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intensive early-intervention programme (called OPUS) (trial registration NCT00157313) consisting of enriched assertive community treatment, psychoeducational family treatment and social skills training for individuals with first-episode psychosis compared with standard treatment. METHOD: An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial, adopting a public sector perspective was undertaken. RESULTS: The mean total costs of OPUS over 5 years (€123,683, s.e. = 8970) were not significantly different from that of standard treatment (€148,751, s.e. = 13073). At 2-year follow-up the mean Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score in the OPUS group (55.16, s.d. = 15.15) was significantly higher than in standard treatment group (51.13, s.d. = 15.92). However, the mean GAF did not differ significantly between the groups at 5-year follow-up (55.35 (s.d. = 18.28) and 54.16 (s.d. = 18.41), respectively). Cost-effectiveness planes based on non-parametric bootstrapping showed that OPUS was less costly and more effective in 70% of the replications. For a willingness-to-pay up to €50,000 the probability that OPUS was cost-effective was more than 80%. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that there was a high probability of OPUS being cost-effective compared with standard treatment.

Five-year follow-up of a randomized multicenter trial of intensive early intervention vs standard treatment for patients with a first episode of psychotic illness: the OPUS trial.

CONTEXT: Intensive early treatment for first-episode psychosis has been shown to be effective. It is unknown if the positive effects are sustained for 5 years. OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term effects of an intensive early-intervention program (OPUS) for first-episode psychotic patients. DESIGN: Single-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial of 2 years of an intensive early-intervention program vs standard treatment. Follow-up periods were 2 and 5 years. SETTING: Copenhagen Hospital Corporation and Psychiatric Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Patients A total of 547 patients with a first episode of psychosis. Of these, 369 patients were participating in a 2-year follow-up, and 301 were participating in a 5-year follow-up. A total of 547 patients were followed for 5 years. INTERVENTIONS: Two years of an intensive early-intervention program vs standard treatment. The intensive early-intervention treatment consisted of assertive community treatment, family involvement, and social skills training. Standard treatment offered contact with a community mental health center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Psychotic and negative symptoms were recorded. Secondary outcome measures were use of services and social functioning. RESULTS: Analysis was based on the principles of intention-to-treat. Assessment was blinded for previous treatment allocation. At the 5-year follow-up, the effect of treatment seen after 2 years (psychotic dimension odds ratio [OR], -0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.58 to -0.06; P = .02; negative dimension OR, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.22; P = .001) had equalized between the treatment groups. A significantly smaller percentage of patients from the experimental group were living in supported housing (4% vs 10%, respectively; OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.8; P = .02) and were hospitalized fewer days (mean, 149 vs 193 days; mean difference, 44 days; 95% CI, 0.15-88.12; P = .05) during the 5-year period. CONCLUSIONS: The intensive early-intervention program improved clinical outcome after 2 years, but the effects were not sustainable up to 5 years later. Secondary outcome measures showed differences in the proportion of patients living in supported housing and days in hospital at the 5-year follow-up in favor of the intensive early-intervention program.

Integrated treatment of first-episode psychosis: effect of treatment on family burden: OPUS trial.

BACKGROUND: The families of patients with first-episode psychosis often play a major role in care and often experience lack of support. AIMS: To determine the effect of integrated treatment v. standard treatment on subjective burden of illness, expressed emotion (EE), knowledge of illness and satisfaction with treatment in key relatives of patients with a first episode of schizophrenia-spectrum disorder. METHOD: Patients with ICD-10 schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (first episode) were randomly assigned to integrated treatment or to standard treatment. Integrated treatment consisted of assertive community treatment, psychoeducational multi-family groups and social skills training. Key relatives were assessed with the Social Behaviour Assessment Schedule (SBAS, burden of illness), the 5-min speech sample (EE), and a multiple choice questionnaire at entry and after 1 year. RESULTS: Relatives in integrated treatment felt less burdened and were significantly more satisfied with treatment than relatives in standard treatment. There were no significant effects of intervention groups on knowledge of illness and EE. CONCLUSIONS: The integrated treatment reduced family burden of illness and improved satisfaction with treatment.