Prognostic Accuracy of DSM-5 Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome in Adolescents: Prospective Real-World 5-Year Cohort Study.

There is limited research in adolescents at risk for psychosis. The new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition attenuated psychosis syndrome (DSM-5 APS) criteria have not been validated in this group. We conducted a RECORD-compliant, real-world, prospective, 5-year cohort study addressing clinical profile, transition to psychosis, and prognostic accuracy of DSM-5 APS in help-seeking inpatient/outpatient adolescents accessing Children and Adolescent Neuropsychiatric services at IRCCS Mondino Foundation (Pavia, Lombardy, Italy) between 2012 and 2019. About 243 adolescents (31 early-onset psychosis [EOP]; 110 meeting DSM-5 APS criteria, DSM-5 APS; 102 not meeting psychotic or DSM-5 APS criteria, non-APS) were included. At baseline, DSM-5 APS adolescents (aged 15.4 ± 1.6) had on average 2.3 comorbid disorders (higher than EOP/non-APS, P < .001). DSM-5 APS adolescents had an intermediate psychopathological profile between non-APS/EOP (P < .001) and worsen Clinical Global Impression-Severity than non-APS (P < .001). DSM-5 APS functioning was intermediate between non-APS and EOP. 39.1% of DSM-5 APS were treated with psychotropic drugs (average = 64 days); 53.6% received psychotherapy. Follow-up of DSM-5 APS and non-APS groups lasted 33 and 26 months, respectively (median). The cumulative risk of transition at 1-5 years was 13%, 17%, 24.2%, 26.8%, and 26.8% in the DSM-5 APS group, 0%, 0%, 3.2%, 3.2%, and 3.2% in the non-APS group. The 5-year prognostic accuracy of the DSM-5 APS in adolescent was adequate (area under the curve = 0.77; Harrell's C = 0.736, 95%CI 0.697-0.775), with high sensitivity (91.3%) and suboptimal specificity (63.2%). The DSM-5 APS diagnosis can be used to detect help-seeking adolescents at risk of psychosis and predict their long-term outcomes. Future research should consolidate these findings.

Universal and Selective Interventions to Prevent Poor Mental Health Outcomes in Young People: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Much is not known about the efficacy of interventions to prevent poor mental health outcomes in young people by targeting either the general population (universal prevention) or asymptomatic individuals with high risk of developing a mental disorder (selective prevention). METHODS: We conducted a PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of Web of Science to identify studies comparing post-test efficacy (effect size [ES]; Hedges' g) of universal or selective interventions for poor mental health outcomes versus control groups, in samples with mean age <35 years (PROSPERO: CRD42018102143). Measurements included random-effects models, I2 statistics, publication bias, meta-regression, sensitivity analyses, quality assessments, number needed to treat, and population impact number. RESULTS: 295 articles (447,206 individuals; mean age = 15.4) appraising 17 poor mental health outcomes were included. Compared to control conditions, universal and selective interventions improved (in descending magnitude order) interpersonal violence, general psychological distress, alcohol use, anxiety features, affective symptoms, other emotional and behavioral problems, consequences of alcohol use, posttraumatic stress disorder features, conduct problems, tobacco use, externalizing behaviors, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder features, and cannabis use, but not eating-related problems, impaired functioning, internalizing behavior, or sleep-related problems. Psychoeducation had the highest effect size for ADHD features, affective symptoms, and interpersonal violence. Psychotherapy had the highest effect size for anxiety features. CONCLUSION: Universal and selective preventive interventions for young individuals are feasible and can improve poor mental health outcomes.

Universal and selective interventions to promote good mental health in young people: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Promotion of good mental health in young people is important. Our aim was to evaluate the consistency and magnitude of the efficacy of universal/selective interventions to promote good mental health. A systematic PRISMA/RIGHT-compliant meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42018088708) search of Web of Science until 04/31/2019 identified original studies comparing the efficacy of universal/selective interventions for good mental health vs a control group, in samples with a mean age <35 years. Meta-analytical random-effects model, heterogeneity statistics, assessment of publication bias, study quality and sensitivity analyses investigated the efficacy (Hedges' g=effect size, ES) of universal/selective interventions to promote 14 good mental health outcomes defined a-priori. 276 studies were included (total participants: 159,508, 79,142 interventions and 80,366 controls), mean age=15.0 (SD=7.4); female=56.0%. There was a significant overall improvement in 10/13 good mental health outcome categories that could be meta-analysed: compared to controls, interventions significantly improved (in descending order of magnitude) mental health literacy (ES=0.685, p<0.001), emotions (ES=0.541, p<0.001), self-perceptions and values (ES=0.49, p<0.001), quality of life (ES=0.457, p=0.001), cognitive skills (ES=0.428, p<0.001), social skills (ES=0.371, p<0.001), physical health (ES=0.285, p<0.001), sexual health (ES=0.257, p=0.017), academic/occupational performance (ES=0.211, p<0.001) and attitude towards mental disorders (ES=0.177, p=0.006). Psychoeducation was the most effective intervention for promoting mental health literacy (ES=0.774, p<0.001) and cognitive skills (ES=1.153, p=0.03). Physical therapy, exercise and relaxation were more effective than psychoeducation and psychotherapy for promoting physical health (ES=0.498, p<0.001). In conclusion, several universal/selective interventions can be effective to promote good mental health in young people. Future research should consolidate and extend these findings.

Predictors of Outcomes in Adolescents With Clinical High Risk for Psychosis, Other Psychiatric Symptoms, and Psychosis: A Longitudinal Protocol Study.

In children and adolescents, schizophrenia is one of the ten main causes of disability-adjusted life years. The identification of people at Clinical High Risk of developing Psychosis (CHR-P) is one of the most promising strategies to improve outcomes. However, in children and adolescents research on the CHR-P state is still in its infancy and the clinical validity of at-risk criteria appears understudied in this population. Furthermore, only few studies have evaluated the psychopathological, neuropsychological, neuroimaging characteristics and, especially, long-term outcomes of adolescents at high risk. We present here the protocol of an innovative longitudinal cohort study of adolescents aged 12-17. The sample will consist of patients admitted to a third level neuropsychiatric unit, belonging to one of the following three subgroups: 1) adolescents with established Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder-Fifth Edition psychosis, 2) adolescents with CHR-P, and 3) adolescents with psychiatric symptoms other than established psychosis or CHR-P. The primary aim of our study is to evaluate the 2-year prognosis across the three groups. We will measure transition to psychosis (or the stability of the diagnosis of psychosis in the psychotic group), the risk of development of other psychiatric disorders, as well as socio-occupational functioning at outcome. The secondary aim will be to explore the effect of specific predictors (clinical, neuropsychological and neuroimaging factors) on the prognosis. At baseline, 1-year and 2-year follow-up participants will be assessed using standardized semi-structured interviews and instruments. Psychopathological and functioning variables, as well as neuropsychological domains will be compared across the three subgroups. Moreover, at baseline and 2-year follow-up all recruited patients will undergo a 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging examination and diffusion tensor imaging parameters will be analyzed. We believe that this study will advance our ability to predict outcomes in underage CHR-P samples. In particular, our data will enable a better understanding of the clinical significance of CHR-P in adolescents, and shed new light on prognostic factors that can be used to refine the prediction of clinical outcomes and the implementation of preventive interventions.