Outcomes of psychotic disorders are associated with high personal, familiar, societal and clinical burden. There is thus an urgent clinical and societal need for improving those outcomes. Recent ...advances in research knowledge have opened new opportunities for ameliorating outcomes of psychosis during its early clinical stages. This paper critically reviews these opportunities, summarizing the state‐of‐the‐art knowledge and focusing on recent discoveries and future avenues for first episode research and clinical interventions. Candidate targets for primary universal prevention of psychosis at the population level are discussed. Potentials offered by primary selective prevention in asymptomatic subgroups (stage 0) are presented. Achievements of primary selected prevention in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (stage 1) are summarized, along with challenges and limitations of its implementation in clinical practice. Early intervention and secondary prevention strategies at the time of a first episode of psychosis (stage 2) are critically discussed, with a particular focus on minimizing the duration of untreated psychosis, improving treatment response, increasing patients’ satisfaction with treatment, reducing illicit substance abuse and preventing relapses. Early intervention and tertiary prevention strategies at the time of an incomplete recovery (stage 3) are further discussed, in particular with respect to addressing treatment resistance, improving well‐being and social skills with reduction of burden on the family, treatment of comorbid substance use, and prevention of multiple relapses and disease progression. In conclusion, to improve outcomes of a complex, heterogeneous syndrome such as psychosis, it is necessary to globally adopt complex models integrating a clinical staging framework and coordinated specialty care programmes that offer pre‐emptive interventions to high‐risk groups identified across the early stages of the disorder. Only a systematic implementation of these models of care in the national health care systems will render these strategies accessible to the 23 million people worldwide suffering from the most severe psychiatric disorders.
Preventive approaches have latterly gained traction for improving mental health in young people. In this paper, we first appraise the conceptual foundations of preventive psychiatry, encompassing the ...public health, Gordon's, US Institute of Medicine, World Health Organization, and good mental health frameworks, and neurodevelopmentally‐sensitive clinical staging models. We then review the evidence supporting primary prevention of psychotic, bipolar and common mental disorders and promotion of good mental health as potential transformative strategies to reduce the incidence of these disorders in young people. Within indicated approaches, the clinical high‐risk for psychosis paradigm has received the most empirical validation, while clinical high‐risk states for bipolar and common mental disorders are increasingly becoming a focus of attention. Selective approaches have mostly targeted familial vulnerability and non‐genetic risk exposures. Selective screening and psychological/psychoeducational interventions in vulnerable subgroups may improve anxiety/depressive symptoms, but their efficacy in reducing the incidence of psychotic/bipolar/common mental disorders is unproven. Selective physical exercise may reduce the incidence of anxiety disorders. Universal psychological/psychoeducational interventions may improve anxiety symptoms but not prevent depressive/anxiety disorders, while universal physical exercise may reduce the incidence of anxiety disorders. Universal public health approaches targeting school climate or social determinants (demographic, economic, neighbourhood, environmental, social/cultural) of mental disorders hold the greatest potential for reducing the risk profile of the population as a whole. The approach to promotion of good mental health is currently fragmented. We leverage the knowledge gained from the review to develop a blueprint for future research and practice of preventive psychiatry in young people: integrating universal and targeted frameworks; advancing multivariable, transdiagnostic, multi‐endpoint epidemiological knowledge; synergically preventing common and infrequent mental disorders; preventing physical and mental health burden together; implementing stratified/personalized prognosis; establishing evidence‐based preventive interventions; developing an ethical framework, improving prevention through education/training; consolidating the cost‐effectiveness of preventive psychiatry; and decreasing inequalities. These goals can only be achieved through an urgent individual, societal, and global level response, which promotes a vigorous collaboration across scientific, health care, societal and governmental sectors for implementing preventive psychiatry, as much is at stake for young people with or at risk for emerging mental disorders.
Mental disorders frequently begin in childhood or adolescence. Psychotropic medications have various indications for the treatment of mental disorders in this age group and are used not infrequently ...off‐label. However, the adverse effects of these medications require special attention during developmentally sensitive periods of life. For this meta‐review, we systematically searched network meta‐analyses and meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), individual RCTs, and cohort studies reporting on 78 a priori selected adverse events across 19 categories of 80 psychotropic medications – including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti‐attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications and mood stabilizers – in children and adolescents with mental disorders. We included data from nine network meta‐analyses, 39 meta‐analyses, 90 individual RCTs, and eight cohort studies, including 337,686 children and adolescents. Data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events were available for six antidepressants (sertraline, escitalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, venlafaxine and vilazodone), eight antipsychotics (risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole, lurasidone, paliperidone, ziprasidone, olanzapine and asenapine), three anti‐ADHD medications (methylphenidate, atomoxetine and guanfacine), and two mood stabilizers (valproate and lithium). Among these medications with data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events, a safer profile emerged for escitalopram and fluoxetine among antidepressants, lurasidone for antipsychotics, methylphenidate among anti‐ADHD medications, and lithium among mood stabilizers. The available literature raised most concerns about the safety of venlafaxine, olanzapine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and valproate. Nausea/vomiting and discontinuation due to adverse event were most frequently associated with antidepressants; sedation, extrapyramidal side effects, and weight gain with antipsychotics; anorexia and insomnia with anti‐ADHD medications; sedation and weight gain with mood stabilizers. The results of this comprehensive and updated quantitative systematic meta‐review of top‐tier evidence regarding the safety of antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti‐ADHD medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents can inform clinical practice, research and treatment guidelines.
The COVID‐19 pandemic and related restrictions can impact mental health. To quantify the mental health burden of COVID‐19 pandemic, we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis, searching World ...Health Organization COVID‐19/PsycInfo/PubMed databases (09/29/2020), including observational studies reporting on mental health outcomes in any population affected by COVID‐19. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of anxiety, depression, stress, sleep problems, posttraumatic symptoms. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on severe mental health problems, in high‐quality studies, and in representative samples. Subgroup analyses were conducted stratified by age, sex, country income level, and COVID‐19 infection status. One‐hundred‐seventy‐three studies from February to July 2020 were included (n = 502,261, median sample = 948, age = 34.4 years, females = 63%). Ninety‐one percent were cross‐sectional studies, and 18.5%/57.2% were of high/moderate quality. The highest prevalence emerged for posttraumatic symptoms in COVID‐19 infected people (94%), followed by behavioral problems in those with prior mental disorders (77%), fear in healthcare workers (71%), anxiety in caregivers/family members of people with COVID‐19 (42%), general health/social contact/passive coping style in the general population (38%), depression in those with prior somatic disorders (37%), and fear in other‐than‐healthcare workers (29%). Females and people with COVID‐19 infection had higher rates of almost all outcomes; college students/young adults of anxiety, depression, sleep problems, suicidal ideation; adults of fear and posttraumatic symptoms. Anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic symptoms were more prevalent in low‐/middle‐income countries, sleep problems in high‐income countries. The COVID‐19 pandemic adversely impacts mental health in a unique manner across population subgroups. Our results inform tailored preventive strategies and interventions to mitigate current, future, and transgenerational adverse mental health of the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Key points
A systematic review and meta‐analysis to quantify the impact of mental health burden of COVID‐19 pandemic and related restrictions.
The highest prevalence emerged for posttraumatic symptoms in COVID‐19 infected people (94%).
Females and people with COVID‐19 infection had higher rates of almost all outcomes.
In low‐/middle‐income nations, the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic symptoms is high.
The usefulness of current psychiatric classification, which is based on ICD/DSM categorical diagnoses, remains questionable. A promising alternative has been put forward as the “transdiagnostic” ...approach. This is expected to cut across existing categorical diagnoses and go beyond them, to improve the way we classify and treat mental disorders. This systematic review explores whether self‐defining transdiagnostic research meets such high expectations. A multi‐step Web of Science literature search was performed according to an a priori protocol, to identify all studies that used the word “transdiagnostic” in their title, up to May 5, 2018. Empirical variables which indexed core characteristics were extracted, complemented by a bibliometric and conceptual analysis. A total of 111 studies were included. Most studies were investigating interventions, followed by cognition and psychological processes, and neuroscientific topics. Their samples ranged from 15 to 91,199 (median 148) participants, with a mean age from 10 to more than 60 (median 33) years. There were several methodological inconsistencies relating to the definition of the gold standard (DSM/ICD diagnoses), of the outcome measures and of the transdiagnostic approach. The quality of the studies was generally low and only a few findings were externally replicated. The majority of studies tested transdiagnostic features cutting across different diagnoses, and only a few tested new classification systems beyond the existing diagnoses. About one fifth of the studies were not transdiagnostic at all, because they investigated symptoms and not disorders, a single disorder, or because there was no diagnostic information. The bibliometric analysis revealed that transdiagnostic research largely restricted its focus to anxiety and depressive disorders. The conceptual analysis showed that transdiagnostic research is grounded more on rediscoveries than on true innovations, and that it is affected by some conceptual biases. To date, transdiagnostic approaches have not delivered a credible paradigm shift that can impact classification and clinical care. Practical “TRANSD”iagnostic recommendations are proposed here to guide future research in this field.
Psychosis is a heterogeneous psychiatric condition for which a multitude of risk and protective factors have been suggested. This umbrella review aimed to classify the strength of evidence for the ...associations between each factor and psychotic disorders whilst controlling for several biases. The Web of Knowledge database was searched to identify systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of observational studies which examined associations between socio‐demographic, parental, perinatal, later factors or antecedents and psychotic disorders, and which included a comparison group of healthy controls, published from 1965 to January 31, 2017. The literature search and data extraction followed PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. The association between each factor and ICD or DSM diagnoses of non‐organic psychotic disorders was graded into convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or non‐significant according to a standardized classification based on: number of psychotic cases, random‐effects p value, largest study 95% confidence interval, heterogeneity between studies, 95% prediction interval, small study effect, and excess significance bias. In order to assess evidence for temporality of association, we also conducted sensitivity analyses restricted to data from prospective studies. Fifty‐five meta‐analyses or systematic reviews were included in the umbrella review, corresponding to 683 individual studies and 170 putative risk or protective factors for psychotic disorders. Only the ultra‐high‐risk state for psychosis (odds ratio, OR=9.32, 95% CI: 4.91‐17.72) and Black‐Caribbean ethnicity in England (OR=4.87, 95% CI: 3.96‐6.00) showed convincing evidence of association. Six factors were highly suggestive (ethnic minority in low ethnic density area, second generation immigrants, trait anhedonia, premorbid IQ, minor physical anomalies, and olfactory identification ability), and nine were suggestive (urbanicity, ethnic minority in high ethnic density area, first generation immigrants, North‐African immigrants in Europe, winter/spring season of birth in Northern hemisphere, childhood social withdrawal, childhood trauma, Toxoplasma gondii IgG, and non‐right handedness). When only prospective studies were considered, the evidence was convincing for ultra‐high‐risk state and suggestive for urbanicity only. In summary, this umbrella review found several factors to be associated with psychotic disorders with different levels of evidence. These risk or protective factors represent a starting point for further etiopathological research and for the improvement of the prediction of psychosis.
Decades of research have revealed numerous risk factors for mental disorders beyond genetics, but their consistency and magnitude remain uncertain. We conducted a “meta‐umbrella” systematic ...synthesis of umbrella reviews, which are systematic reviews of meta‐analyses of individual studies, by searching international databases from inception to January 1, 2021. We included umbrella reviews on non‐purely genetic risk or protective factors for any ICD/DSM mental disorders, applying an established classification of the credibility of the evidence: class I (convincing), class II (highly suggestive), class III (suggestive), class IV (weak). Sensitivity analyses were conducted on prospective studies to test for temporality (reverse causation), TRANSD criteria were applied to test transdiagnosticity of factors, and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was employed to address the quality of meta‐analyses. Fourteen eligible umbrella reviews were retrieved, summarizing 390 meta‐analyses and 1,180 associations between putative risk or protective factors and mental disorders. We included 176 class I to III evidence associations, relating to 142 risk/protective factors. The most robust risk factors (class I or II, from prospective designs) were 21. For dementia, they included type 2 diabetes mellitus (risk ratio, RR from 1.54 to 2.28), depression (RR from 1.65 to 1.99) and low frequency of social contacts (RR=1.57). For opioid use disorders, the most robust risk factor was tobacco smoking (odds ratio, OR=3.07). For non‐organic psychotic disorders, the most robust risk factors were clinical high risk state for psychosis (OR=9.32), cannabis use (OR=3.90), and childhood adversities (OR=2.80). For depressive disorders, they were widowhood (RR=5.59), sexual dysfunction (OR=2.71), three (OR=1.99) or four‐five (OR=2.06) metabolic factors, childhood physical (OR=1.98) and sexual (OR=2.42) abuse, job strain (OR=1.77), obesity (OR=1.35), and sleep disturbances (RR=1.92). For autism spectrum disorder, the most robust risk factor was maternal overweight pre/during pregnancy (RR=1.28). For attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), they were maternal pre‐pregnancy obesity (OR=1.63), maternal smoking during pregnancy (OR=1.60), and maternal overweight pre/during pregnancy (OR=1.28). Only one robust protective factor was detected: high physical activity (hazard ratio, HR=0.62) for Alzheimer’s disease. In all, 32.9% of the associations were of high quality, 48.9% of medium quality, and 18.2% of low quality. Transdiagnostic class I‐III risk/protective factors were mostly involved in the early neurodevelopmental period. The evidence‐based atlas of key risk and protective factors identified in this study represents a benchmark for advancing clinical characterization and research, and for expanding early intervention and preventive strategies for mental disorders.
The Clinical High-Risk state for psychosis (CHR-P) paradigm was introduced about 2 decades ago. Over this period of time accumulating knowledge has been gained. Conceptual advancements involve new ...knowledge into risk enrichment and the impact of recruitment strategies, specificity for prediction of psychotic and nonpsychotic mental disorders and heterogeneity of psychosis risk among the different CHR-P subgroups. The current special issue advances current knowledge on deconstructing the CHR-P paradigm across its 3 subgroups: genetic risk, attenuated psychotic symptoms, and short-lived and remitting psychotic episodes. A conceptual revision of the paradigm (Version II) is suggested and supported by 3 original studies published in this special issue.
Background
The clinical high‐risk state for psychosis (CHR‐P) paradigm has facilitated the implementation of psychosis prevention into clinical practice; however, advancements in adolescent CHR‐P ...populations are less established.
Methods
We performed a PRISMA/MOOSE‐compliant systematic review of the Web of Science database, from inception until 7 October 2019, to identify original studies conducted in CHR‐P children and adolescents (mean age <18 years). Findings were systematically appraised around core themes: detection, prognosis and intervention. We performed meta‐analyses (employing Q statistics and I
2 test) regarding the proportion of CHR‐P subgroups, the prevalence of baseline comorbid mental disorders, the risk of psychosis onset and the type of interventions received at baseline. Quality assessment and publication bias were also analysed.
Results
Eighty‐seven articles were included (n = 4,667 CHR‐P individuals). Quality of studies ranged from 3.5 to 8 (median 5.5) on a modified Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Detection: Individuals were aged 15.6 ± 1.2 years (51.5% males), mostly (83%) presenting with attenuated positive psychotic symptoms. CHR‐P psychometric accuracy improved when caregivers served as additional informants. Comorbid mood (46.4%) and anxiety (31.4%) disorders were highly prevalent. Functioning and cognition were impaired. Neurobiological studies were inconclusive. Prognosis: Risk for psychosis was 10.4% (95%CI: 5.8%–18.1%) at 6 months, 20% (95%CI: 15%–26%) at 12 months, 23% (95%CI: 18%–29%) at 24 months and 23.3% (95%CI: 17.3%–30.7%) at ≥36 months. Interventions: There was not enough evidence to recommend one specific treatment (including cognitive behavioural therapy) over the others (including control conditions) to prevent the transition to psychosis in this population. Randomised controlled trials suggested that family interventions, cognitive remediation and fish oil supplementation may improve cognition, symptoms and functioning. At baseline, 30% of CHR‐P adolescents were prescribed antipsychotics and 60% received psychotherapy.
Conclusions
It is possible to detect and formulate a group‐level prognosis in adolescents at risk for psychosis. Future interventional research is required.
PDF
