Antipsychotic treatment resistance in first-episode psychosis: prevalence, subtypes and predictors.

BACKGROUND: We examined longitudinally the course and predictors of treatment resistance in a large cohort of first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients from initiation of antipsychotic treatment. We hypothesized that antipsychotic treatment resistance is: (a) present at illness onset; and (b) differentially associated with clinical and demographic factors. METHOD: The study sample comprised 323 FEP patients who were studied at first contact and at 10-year follow-up. We collated clinical information on severity of symptoms, antipsychotic medication and treatment adherence during the follow-up period to determine the presence, course and predictors of treatment resistance. RESULTS: From the 23% of the patients, who were treatment resistant, 84% were treatment resistant from illness onset. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that diagnosis of schizophrenia, negative symptoms, younger age at onset, and longer duration of untreated psychosis predicted treatment resistance from illness onset. CONCLUSIONS: The striking majority of treatment-resistant patients do not respond to first-line antipsychotic treatment even at time of FEP. Clinicians must be alert to this subgroup of patients and consider clozapine treatment as early as possible during the first presentation of psychosis.

Two distinct patterns of treatment resistance: clinical predictors of treatment resistance in first-episode schizophrenia spectrum psychoses.

BACKGROUND: Clozapine remains the only evidence-based antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). The ability to predict which patients with their first onset of schizophrenia would subsequently meet criteria for treatment resistance (TR) could help to diminish the severe functional disability which may ensue if TR is not recognized and correctly treated. METHOD: This is a 5-year longitudinal assessment of clinical outcomes in a cohort of 246 first-episode schizophrenia spectrum patients recruited as part of the NIHR Genetics and Psychosis (GAP) study conducted in South London from 2005 to 2010. We examined the relationship between baseline demographic and clinical measures and the emergence of TR. TR status was determined from a review of electronic case records. We assessed for associations with early-, and late-onset TR, and non-TR, and differences between those TR patients treated with clozapine and those who were not. RESULTS: Seventy per cent (n = 56) of TR patients, and 23% of the total study population (n = 246) were treatment resistant from illness onset. Those who met criteria for TR during the first 5 years of illness were more likely to have an early age of first contact for psychosis (<20 years) [odds ratio (OR) 2.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-4.94] compared to those with non-TR. The relationship between an early age of first contact (<20 years) and TR was significant in patients of Black ethnicity (OR 3.71, 95% CI 1.44-9.56); and patients of male gender (OR 3.13 95% CI 1.35-7.23). CONCLUSIONS: For the majority of the TR group, antipsychotic TR is present from illness onset, necessitating increased consideration for the earlier use of clozapine.

Biological and psychosocial risk factors for psychotic major depression.

AIMS: Few studies have investigated risk factors for psychotic major depression (PMD). We aimed to investigate the biological and psychosocial risk factors associated with PMD compared with other psychotic disorders. METHODS: Based on the aetiology and ethnicity in schizophrenia and other psychoses (ÆSOP) study, we used a case-control study to identify and recruit, at baseline and 10-year follow-up, all first episode cases of psychosis, presenting for the first time to specialist mental health services in defined catchment areas in the UK. Population-based controls were recruited from the same areas. Data were collected on: sociodemographics; social isolation; childhood adversity; life events; minor physical anomalies; and neurological soft signs. RESULTS: Living alone (aOR = 2.26, CI = 1.21-4.23), basic level qualification (aOR = 2.89, CI = 1.08-7.74), being unemployed (aOR = 2.12, CI = 1.13-3.96), having contact with friends less than monthly (aOR = 4.24, CI = 1.62-11.14), having no close confidants (aOR = 4.71, CI = 2.08-10.68), having experienced childhood adversity (aOR = 2.57, CI = 1.02-6.44), family history of mental illness (aOR = 10.68, CI = 5.06-22.52), family history of psychosis (aOR = 12.85, CI = 5.24-31.51), and having more neurological soft signs (aOR = 1.15, CI = 1.07-1.24) were all associated with a follow-up diagnosis of PMD and schizophrenia. Few variables associated with PMD were also associated with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Minor physical anomalies were associated with a follow-up diagnosis of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, but not PMD. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors associated with PMD appear to overlap with those for schizophrenia, but less so for bipolar disorder. Future work on the differential aetiology of PMD, from other psychoses is needed to find the 'specifier' between PMD and other psychoses. Future research on aetiology in PMD, and perhaps other psychoses, should account for diagnostic change.

The effect of the environment on symptom dimensions in the first episode of psychosis: a multilevel study.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which different symptom dimensions vary according to epidemiological factors associated with categorical definitions of first-episode psychosis (FEP) is unknown. We hypothesized that positive psychotic symptoms, including paranoid delusions and depressive symptoms, would be more prominent in more urban environments. METHOD: We collected clinical and epidemiological data on 469 people with FEP (ICD-10 F10-F33) in two centres of the Aetiology and Ethnicity in Schizophrenia and Other Psychoses (AESOP) study: Southeast London and Nottinghamshire. We used multilevel regression models to examine neighbourhood-level and between-centre differences in five symptom dimensions (reality distortion, negative symptoms, manic symptoms, depressive symptoms and disorganization) underpinning Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN) Item Group Checklist (IGC) symptoms. Delusions of persecution and reference, along with other individual IGC symptoms, were inspected for area-level variation. RESULTS: Reality distortion [estimated effect size (EES) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-0.24] and depressive symptoms (EES 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.34) were elevated in people with FEP living in more urban Southeast London but disorganized symptomatology was lower (EES -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02), after controlling for confounders. Delusions of persecution were not associated with increased neighbourhood population density [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.83-1.23], although an effect was observed for delusions of reference (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.12-1.77). Hallucinatory symptoms showed consistent elevation in more densely populated neighbourhoods (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.61). CONCLUSIONS: In people experiencing FEP, elevated levels of reality distortion and depressive symptoms were observed in more urban, densely populated neighbourhoods. No clear association was observed for paranoid delusions; hallucinations were consistently associated with increased population density. These results suggest that urban environments may affect the syndromal presentation of psychotic disorders.

Combining dimensional and categorical representation of psychosis: the way forward for DSM-V and ICD-11?

BACKGROUND: There is good evidence that psychotic symptoms segregate into symptom dimensions. However, it is still unclear how these dimensions are associated with risk indicators and other clinical variables, and whether they have advantages over categorical diagnosis in clinical practice. We investigated symptom dimensions in a first-onset psychosis sample and examined their associations with risk indicators and clinical variables. We then examined the relationship of categorical diagnoses to the same variables. METHOD: We recruited 536 patients as part of a population-based, incidence study of psychosis. Psychopathology was assessed using the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN). A principal axis factor analysis was performed on symptom scores. The relationship of dimension scores with risk indicators and with clinical variables was then examined employing regression analyses. Finally, regression models were compared to assess the contribution of dimensions versus diagnosis in explaining these variables. RESULTS: Factor analysis gave rise to a five-factor solution of manic, reality distortion, negative, depressive and disorganization symptom dimensions. The scores of identified dimensions were differentially associated with specific variables. The manic dimension had the highest number of significant associations; strong correlations were observed with shorter duration of untreated psychosis, acute mode of onset and compulsory admission. Adding dimensional scores to diagnostic categories significantly increased the amount of variability explained in predicting these variables; the reverse was also true but to a lesser extent. CONCLUSIONS: Categorical and dimensional representations of psychosis are complementary. Using both appears to be a promising strategy in conceptualising psychotic illnesses.

Aggressive behaviour at first contact with services: findings from the AESOP First Episode Psychosis Study.

BACKGROUND: Aggressive behaviour is increased among those with schizophrenia but less is known about those with affective psychoses. Similarly, little is known about aggressive behaviour occurring at the onset of illness. METHOD: The main reasons for presentation to services were examined among those recruited to a UK-based first episode psychosis study. The proportion of individuals presenting with aggressive behaviour was determined and these individuals were compared to those who were not aggressive on a range of variables including sociodemographic, clinical, criminal history, service contact, and symptom characteristics. Among the aggressive group, those who were physically violent were distinguished from those who were not violent but who were still perceived to present a risk of violence to others. RESULTS: Almost 40% (n=194) of the sample were aggressive at first contact with services; approximately half of these were physically violent (n=103). Younger age, African-Caribbean ethnicity and a history of previous violent offending were independently associated with aggression. Aggressive behaviour was associated with a diagnosis of mania and individual manic symptoms were also associated with aggression both for the whole sample and for those with schizophrenia. Factors differentiating violent from non-violent aggressive patients included male gender, lower social class and past violent offending. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive behaviour is not an uncommon feature in those presenting with first episode psychosis. Sociodemographic and past offending factors are associated with aggression and further differentiate those presenting with more serious violence. A diagnosis of mania and the presence of manic symptoms are associated with aggression.