RESUMEN
AIM: Current diagnostic systems, DSM-5 and ICD-10, still adopt a categorical approach to classify psychotic disorders. The present study was aimed at investigating the structure of psychotic symptomatology in both affective and non-affective psychosis from a dimensional approach. METHODS: Participants with a first episode psychosis (FEP) were recruited from a cluster-randomized controlled trial (GET-UP PIANO TRIAL), offered to all Community Mental Health Centres (CMHCs) located across two northern Italian regions. After clinical stabilization, patients were assessed with a comprehensive set of psychopathological measures including the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Rating Scale. A two-step cluster analysis was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 257 FEP patients (male, n = 171, 66.5%; mean age = 24.96 ± 4.56) were included in the study. The cluster analysis revealed a robust four-cluster solution: delusional-persecutory (n = 82; 31.9%), depressed (n = 95; 37%), excited (n = 26; 10.1%) and negative-disorganized (n = 54; 21%), thus suggesting a quadripartite structure with both affective and non-affective dimensions. Among non-affective dimensions, negative and disorganization symptoms constituted a unique construct apart from positive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom dimensions may represent a useful tool for dissecting the indistinct and non-specific psychopathology of FEP in order to better target specific interventions.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos Psicóticos/diagnóstico , Adulto , Análisis por Conglomerados , Deluciones/complicaciones , Depresión/complicaciones , Manual Diagnóstico y Estadístico de los Trastornos Mentales , Femenino , Humanos , Italia , Masculino , Escalas de Valoración Psiquiátrica/estadística & datos numéricos , Trastornos Psicóticos/complicaciones , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BackgroundThe GET UP multi-element psychosocial intervention proved to be superior to treatment as usual in improving outcomes in patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP). However, to guide treatment decisions, information on which patients may benefit more from the intervention is warranted.AimsTo identify patients' characteristics associated with (a) a better treatment response regardless of treatment type (non-specific predictors), and (b) a better response to the specific treatment provided (moderators).MethodSome demographic and clinical variables were selected a priori as potential predictors/moderators of outcomes at 9 months. Outcomes were analysed in mixed-effects random regression models. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01436331)ResultsAnalyses were performed on 444 patients. Education, duration of untreated psychosis, premorbid adjustment and insight predicted outcomes regardless of treatment. Only age at first contact with the services proved to be a moderator of treatment outcome (patients aged ⩾35 years had greater improvement in psychopathology), thus suggesting that the intervention is beneficial to a broad array of patients with FEP.ConclusionsExcept for patients aged over 35 years, no specific subgroups benefit more from the multi-element psychosocial intervention, suggesting that this intervention should be recommended to all those with FEP seeking treatment in mental health services.
Asunto(s)
Terapia Cognitivo-Conductual/métodos , Trastornos Psicóticos/terapia , Adolescente , Adulto , Edad de Inicio , Análisis por Conglomerados , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Integrated multi-element psychosocial interventions have been suggested to improve the outcomes of first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients, but they have been studied primarily in experimental settings and in nonepidemiologically representative samples. Thus, we performed a cluster-randomized controlled trial, comparing an integrated multi-element psychosocial intervention, comprising cognitive behavioral therapy, family intervention, and case management, with treatment as usual (TAU) for FEP patients in 117 community mental health centers (CMHCs) in a large area of northern Italy (10 million inhabitants). The randomized units (clusters) were the CMHCs, and the units of observation the patients (and, when available, their family members). The primary hypotheses were that add-on multicomponent intervention: (1) results in greater improvements in symptoms, as assessed with positive and negative syndrome scale and (2) reduces in-hospital stay, based on days of hospitalization over the 9-month follow-up. Four hundred and forty-four FEP patients received the intervention or TAU and were assessed at baseline and 9 months. Based on the retention rates of patients (and families) in the experimental arm, multi-element psychosocial interventions can be implemented in routine mental health services. Regarding primary outcomes, patients in the experimental arm showed greater reductions in overall symptom severity, while no difference could be found for days of hospitalization. Among the secondary outcomes, greater improvements were detected in the experimental arm for global functioning, emotional well-being, and subjective burden of delusions. No difference could be found for service disengagement and subjective burden of auditory hallucinations. These findings support feasibility and effectiveness of early interventions for psychosis in generalist mental health services.
Asunto(s)
Terapia Cognitivo-Conductual/métodos , Centros Comunitarios de Salud Mental , Terapia Familiar/métodos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Trastornos Psicóticos/terapia , Adulto , Manejo de Caso , Estudios de Factibilidad , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , MasculinoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Multi-element interventions for first-episode psychosis (FEP) are promising, but have mostly been conducted in non-epidemiologically representative samples, thereby raising the risk of underestimating the complexities involved in treating FEP in 'real-world' services. METHODS/DESIGN: The Psychosis early Intervention and Assessment of Needs and Outcome (PIANO) trial is part of a larger research program (Genetics, Endophenotypes and Treatment: Understanding early Psychosis - GET UP) which aims to compare, at 9 months, the effectiveness of a multi-component psychosocial intervention versus treatment as usual (TAU) in a large epidemiologically based cohort of patients with FEP and their family members recruited from all public community mental health centers (CMHCs) located in two entire regions of Italy (Veneto and Emilia Romagna), and in the cities of Florence, Milan and Bolzano. The GET UP PIANO trial has a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled design. The randomized units (clusters) are the CMHCs, and the units of observation are the centers' patients and their family members. Patients in the experimental group will receive TAU plus: 1) cognitive behavioral therapy sessions, 2) psycho-educational sessions for family members, and 3) case management. Patient enrollment will take place over a 1-year period. Several psychopathological, psychological, functioning, and service use variables will be assessed at baseline and follow-up. The primary outcomes are: 1) change from baseline to follow-up in positive and negative symptoms' severity and subjective appraisal; 2) relapse occurrences between baseline and follow-up, that is, episodes resulting in admission and/or any case-note records of re-emergence of positive psychotic symptoms. The expected number of recruited patients is about 400, and that of relatives about 300. Owing to the implementation of the intervention at the CMHC level, the blinding of patients, clinicians, and raters is not possible, but every effort will be made to preserve the independency of the raters. We expect that this study will generate evidence on the best treatments for FEP, and will identify barriers that may hinder its feasibility in 'real-world' clinical settings, patient/family conditions that may render this intervention ineffective or inappropriate, and clinical, psychological, environmental, and service organization predictors of treatment effectiveness, compliance, and service satisfaction.