Faculty Bibliography

Clinical staging improved the possibility of intervening during the psychosis prodrome to limit progression of illness. The current study aimed to validate a novel 4-stage severity-based model with a focus on clinical change over time and risk for conversion to psychosis. One hundred seventy-one individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis were followed prospectively (3 +/- 1.6 y) as part of the Recognition and Prevention (RAP) program and divided into 4 diagnostic stages according to absence/presence and severity of attenuated positive symptoms. Twenty-two percent of the combined sample recovered (no prodromal symptoms) by study outcome. The negative symptoms only subgroup had the highest symptom stability (70%), but the lowest conversion rate at 5.9%. The subgroup with more severe baseline attenuated positive symptom levels had a higher conversion rate (28%) and a more rapid onset when compared to the moderate attenuated positive symptom subgroup (11%). Finally, the Schizophrenia-Like Psychosis (SLP) subgroup showed low stability (3%), with 49% developing a specific psychotic disorder. The proposed stage model provides a more finely grained classification system than the standard diagnostic approach for prodromal individuals. All 4 stages are in need of early intervention because of low recovery rates. The negative symptom only stage is possibly a separate clinical syndrome, with an increased risk of functional disability. Both subgroups with attenuated positive symptoms are appropriate for studying the mechanisms of psychosis risk, however, individuals with more severe baseline positive symptoms appear better suited to clinical trials. Finally, the SLP category represents an intermediate outcome group appropriate for preventative intervention research but questionable for inclusion in prodromal studies of mechanisms.

OBJECTIVE: To compare neuropsychological performance in people at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR), healthy controls (HCs), or subjects with first-episode psychosis (FEP). DATA SOURCES: Systematic PubMed/MEDLINE search through January 2014, without language restrictions, using search terms prodrome OR clinical high-risk OR ultra-high risk AND cognition OR individual test names. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting neuropsychological data in CHR versus a HC or FEP groups or comparing CHR subjects who converted to psychosis (CHR-P) with CHR subjects who did not convert to psychosis (CHR-NP). DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted and compared neurocognitive test data. RESULTS: A meta-analysis was performed on 60 neuropsychological tests from 9 domains in 32 studies with 21 nonoverlapping samples (CHR = 1,684 patients, HC = 986, FEP = 405). Compared to HCs, people with CHR performed significantly worse in 7 of 9 domains (Hedges g effect size [95% confidence limit] = -0.17 [-0.30, -0.04] [attention/vigilance] to -0.42 [-0.64, -0.20] [verbal learning, speed of processing] and -0.43 [-0.68, -0.18] [social cognition]), except reasoning/problem solving and working memory (which separated in longitudinal studies). California Verbal Learning Test (-0.65 [-0.84, -0.46]) and Digit Symbol Test (-0.63 [-0.86, -0.40]) separated groups the most. Compared to FEP subjects, people with CHR performed significantly better in 5 of 6 domains (from 0.29 [0.03, 0.56] [speed of processing] to 0.39 [0.17, 0.62] [attention/vigilance, verbal learning] and -0.40 [0.18, 0.64] [working memory]), except reasoning/problem solving. CHR-P and CHR-NP performed significantly worse than HC (except visual learning, working memory in CHR-NP). Compared to CHR-NP, CHR-P performed significantly worse in 6 of 8 domains (from -0.24 [-0.44, -0.03] [attention/vigilance] to -0.49 [-0.76, -0.22] [verbal learning] and -0.54 [-0.80, -0.27] [visual learning]), without differences in reasoning/problem solving and working memory. Three individual tests (Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test, Verbal Fluency Test/Controlled Oral Word Association Test, and California Verbal Learning Test) discriminated the best between CHR-P and CHR-NP (-0.49 [-0.82, -0.16], -0.45 [-0.86, -0.03], and -0.40 [-0.80, -0.00], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: CHR has mild to moderate globally distributed neuropsychological performance deficits that lie between FEP and HCs. Neuropsychological performance deficits are greater in CHR-P than in CHR-NP, but they overlap, reducing their current utility for risk stratification.

AIM: The Scale of Prodromal Symptoms (SOPS) was developed to identify individuals experiencing early signs of psychosis, a critical first step towards early intervention. Preliminary dimension reduction analyses suggested that psychosis-risk symptoms may deviate from the traditional symptom structure of schizophrenia, but findings have been inconsistent. This study investigated the phenomenology of psychosis risk symptoms in a large sample from a multi-site, national study using rigorous factor analysis procedure. METHODS: Participants were 334 help-seeking youth (age: 17.0 +/- 3.3) from the Early Detection and Intervention for the Prevention of Psychosis Program, consisting of 203 participants at clinically higher risk (sum of P scores >/= 7), 87 with clinically lower risk (sum of P scores < 7) and 44 in very early first-episode psychosis (<30 days of positive symptoms). Baseline SOPS data were subjected to principal axis factoring (PAF), estimating factors based on shared variance, with Oblimin rotation. RESULTS: PAF yielded four latent factors explaining 36.1% of total variance: positive symptoms; distress; negative symptoms; and deteriorated thought process. They showed reasonable internal consistency and good convergence validity, and were not orthogonal. CONCLUSIONS: The empirical factors of the SOPS showed similarities and notable differences compared with the existing SOPS structure. Regrouping the symptoms based on the empirical symptom dimensions may improve the diagnostic validity of the SOPS. Relative prominence of the factors and symptom frequency support early identification strategies focusing on positive symptoms and distress. Future investigation of long-term functional implications of these symptom factors may further inform intervention strategies.

Studies have examined the differences in sociodemographic/clinical characteristics between patients on long-acting injectable (LAI) versus oral medications. However, most studies did not focus specifically on patients for whom LAIs would clearly be indicated. We performed a chart review of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Patients were categorized as having an 'indication for an LAI' or not on the basis of their adherence history. Patients for whom an LAI was indicated and prescribed on discharge were then compared with similar patients for whom an LAI was not prescribed. Of 305 charts reviewed, consisting of 279 unique patients, 27.2% were judged to have an indication for an LAI (n=76), but only 32.9% of these (n=25) were discharged on an LAI. In the multiregression model, being African American, residing in a psychiatric residence, having a previous history of an LAI trial, and being treated with a higher antipsychotic dose were predictive of LAI prescription. It is important to focus on the population who are not likely to receive an LAI, but who have such indications for treatment.

BACKGROUND: Increasing reports of synthetic cannabinoid (SC)-related adverse events have largely comprised case reports and analyses of calls to poison control centers. Existing studies have also mostly involved white male populations. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to systematically describe clinical characteristics of SC use in a relatively large, diverse, urban sample presenting to a psychiatric emergency setting. METHODS: SC users (n = 110) were identified by reviewing charts (n = 948) from the psychiatric emergency service of a large, urban public hospital in the United States for November 2014, which was randomly selected from the 12 months of that year. Sociodemographic data were collected from administrative databases and clinical data were collected from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: SC users were mostly non-white (90.0%) males (95.5%), who were likely to be police-involved (34.5%) and homeless (84.5%). SC users also had significant and often pre-existing psychiatric and substance use comorbidity, including acute psychotic symptoms (70.0%), more than one comorbid psychiatric diagnosis (31.8%) and primary psychotic disorder diagnosis (40.0%), past psychiatric visits to the hospital (70.9%), comorbid substance use (62.7%), agitation requiring intervention (22.7%), and the need for extended psychiatric observation (15.5%) and inpatient admission (34.5%). Relatively limited medical complications were identified. Conclusions/Importance: In this sample, SC use affected a sociodemographically disadvantaged and mentally ill population, likely exacerbating existing psychiatric problems. This is one of the only studies to systematically examine the clinical effects of SC use in a significant clinical sample, and the first study in an urban, racial/ethnic minority, and vulnerable sample.

Individuals who initiate substance use before high school are at higher risk of negative outcomes. Eighty-six young adults between the ages of 18 and 28 participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews focused on the circumstances surrounding participants' first use of substances and their pattern of use in the year following initiation in order to investigate similarities and differences between early versus later initiators. Initiation and use among early initiators were more likely to be encouraged by poor parental monitoring or active facilitation of use by parents. Early initiators were more likely to report risky patterns of use such as daily use and using alone. The data suggest that interventions targeting this population should focus on improving parental monitoring and decreasing positive parental attitudes toward adolescent substance use and efforts to increase identification and intervention by middle school staff to reach youth from high-risk families.

OBJECTIVE: The U.S. Department of Justice has called for the creation of trauma-informed juvenile justice systems in order to combat the negative impact of trauma on youth offenders and frontline staff. Definitions of trauma-informed care have been proposed for various service systems, yet there is not currently a widely accepted definition for juvenile justice. The current systematic review examined published definitions of a trauma-informed juvenile justice system in an effort to identify the most commonly named core elements and specific interventions or policies. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted in 10 databases to identify publications that defined trauma-informed care or recommended specific practices or policies for the juvenile justice system. RESULTS: We reviewed 950 unique records, of which 10 met criteria for inclusion. The 10 publications included 71 different recommended interventions or policies that reflected 10 core domains of trauma-informed practice. We found 8 specific practice or policy recommendations with relative consensus, including staff training on trauma and trauma-specific treatment, while most recommendations were included in 2 or less definitions. CONCLUSION: The extant literature offers relative consensus around the core domains of a trauma-informed juvenile justice system, but much less agreement on the specific practices and policies. A logical next step is a review of the empirical research to determine which practices or policies produce positive impacts on outcomes for youth, staff, and the broader agency environment, which will help refine the core definitional elements that comprise a unified theory of trauma-informed practice for juvenile justice. (PsycINFO Database Record