Antipsychotic Treatment in People at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis: A Narrative Review of Suggestions for Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: The "early intervention" paradigm in psychiatry holds significant promise for preventing psychosis. Recent evidence showed that individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) with antipsychotic (AP) prescription at baseline have higher psychosis transition rates compared with those without AP, although the underlying cause remains unclear. In this article, we reviewed international guidelines on early intervention in CHR-P people, paying specific attention to clinical recommendations on AP treatment. Then, we comment on these suggestions in the light of recent empirical evidence examining AP prescription in CHR-P populations within "real-world" clinical settings. METHODS: This search was conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Google, looking for both "Guidelines AND CHR-P OR UHR OR Early Psychosis." RESULTS: International guidelines generally recommend not using AP as first-line treatment, but only when psychosocial interventions have failed. CHR-P people with AP drug showed high prevalence rates and had more severe clinical picture at entry. Is this a "warning signal" for potentially higher psychosis transition risk? Is it a direct AP iatrogenic effect? Is it possible to detect specific CHR-P subgroup that may benefit from AP? These are the questions that this article seeks to explore. CONCLUSIONS: The current framework for identifying CHR-P subjects has defined psychometric criteria mainly based on positive symptoms. In our opinion, this is reductive, especially for evaluating therapeutic outcomes and prognosis. A more comprehensive assessment considering quality of life, psychiatric comorbidity, persistent negative symptoms, subjective experience of CHR-P psychopathology, and social/personal recovery is thus needed.

Subgroups of Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Based on Baseline Antipsychotic Exposure: Clinical and Outcome Comparisons Across a 2-Year Follow-up Period.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Antipsychotic (AP) prescription in clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) subjects remains a divisive issue. Although official guidelines currently discourage AP treatment in CHR-P, it is common in clinical practice, especially for psychosis prevention. The aim of this study was to investigate whether baseline AP need (especially in high-dose) indexes a CHR-P subgroup with poorer prognosis and differs from AP-naïve subjects in terms of sociodemographic, clinical, and outcome parameters across a 2-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: CHR-P participants were treated within an "Early Intervention in Psychosis" program and completed the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale both at baseline and every 12 months. Individuals with baseline AP prescription were included in the high-dose or low-dose CHR-P-AP+ subgroup. The others were grouped as AP-naïve. Cox regression analyses and mixed-design ANOVA were performed. STUDY RESULTS: 180 CHR-P individuals were enrolled (32 high-dose, 60 low-dose, and 88 AP-naïve). Compared to AP-naive, CHR-P AP+ subgroups showed older age and more severe clinical presentation. High-dose subgroup also had grater functioning decline at entry and poorer functional recovery at follow-up. No inter-group differences in psychosis transition and symptomatic remission were found. Significant improvement in clinical outcomes were found over time in all subgroups. Baseline AP prescription was specifically associated with a more relevant improvement in PANSS total score, and in negative and disorganized symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that baseline AP need is an important prognostic parameter in CHR-P and should be considered in risk/benefit calculators.