Who needs antipsychotic medication in the earliest stages of psychosis? A reconsideration of benefits, risks, neurobiology and ethics in the era of early intervention

Orygen Youth Health, 35 Poplar Road Locked Bag 10, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia.
Schizophrenia Research (Impact Factor: 4.43). 03/2010; 119(1-3):1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2010.02.1071
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In recent years, early intervention services have attempted to identify people with a first episode of psychosis as early as possible, reducing the duration of untreated psychosis and changing the timing of delivery of interventions. The logic of early intervention is based partly on accessing people in a more treatment responsive stage of illness in which psychosocial damage is less extensive, and partly on remediating a putatively active process of neuroprogression that leads to pathophysiological, symptomatic and structural changes, hence improving symptomatic and functional outcomes. However, as in other areas of health care, earlier identification of new patients may mean that different treatment approaches are indicated. The corollary of early detection is that the sequence and complexion of treatment strategies for first episode psychosis has been revaluated. Examples include the minimal effective dosage of antipsychotic medication and the content of psychosocial interventions. With the substantial reductions of DUP now seen in many early psychosis services, based on clinical staging and stepped care principles, it is even possible that the immediate introduction of antipsychotic medication may not be necessary for all first episode psychosis cases, but that potentially safer interventions, which may be more acceptable to many patients, such as comprehensive psychosocial intervention, may constitute effective treatment at least for a subgroup of patients. In this paper, we review this theoretical background and describe a randomised controlled trial currently underway at the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) in Melbourne designed to test outcomes for first episode psychosis patients in response to two different treatments: intensive psychosocial intervention plus antipsychotic medication versus intensive psychosocial intervention plus placebo. This is a theoretically and pragmatically novel study in that it will provide evidence as to whether intensive psychosocial intervention alone is sufficient for a subgroup of first episode psychosis patients in a specialised early intervention service, and provide a test of the heuristic clinical staging model. By experimentally manipulating duration of untreated psychosis, the study will also provide a methodologically strong test of the effect of delaying the introduction of antipsychotic medication, as well as helping to disentangle the effects of antipsychotic medications and the putative neurobiological processes associated with brain changes and symptom profiles in the early phase of psychotic disorders. The study has been carefully crafted to satisfy critical ethical demands in this challenging research domain.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors review the psychotherapy interventions used most in psychotic patients, stressing, firstly, those conducted in the early phases of the disease, the most classical interventions during periods of stability, and, finally interventions related with psychosocial rehabilitation of the psychotic patient. Within the early phases of the disease, a distinction is made between high-risk subjects and those who have already had a first psychotic episode. The efficacy and the current intervention model in each of the most conventional psychotherapies: dynamic, cognitive-behavioral, family, and group therapies, are described. Special emphasis is placed on adaptation to the patient’s needs in each intervention model. Finally, the psychosocial interventions that have demonstrated their efficacy are indicated, that is to say, assertive community therapy, social skills training and supported employment programs.
    Clínica y Salud 12/2009; 21(3):285-297. DOI:10.5093/cl2010v21n3a6
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article aims to present the validation study of the French version of the Comprehensive Assessment of at risk mental states (CAARMS), an interview that seeks to determine whether young adults criteria for at-risk (AR) mental states, or psychosis. We assessed 40 young subjects, 15 were considered as “prodromal” (Prd) and 10 as experiencing a first episode of psychosis (PEP) by our expert clinician at the center – centre d’évaluation des jeunes adultes et adolescents, University Hospital Centre, Paris – and 15 were healthy controls matched for age and sex. When assessed with the CAARMS, 73 % (n = 11) of the prodromal subjects reached the criteria for AR mental state, four subjects did not reach the criteria for AR, nor psychosis (P) and 100 % of the PEP reached the criteria for P. The three groups were significantly different on CAARMS total score (P < 0.001) and subscores ; Prd subjects had intermediate scores between PEP (P < 0.001) and controls (P < 0.001) scores, PEP showing the highest scores. Post-hoc analysis showed that Prd significantly differed from Controls on each subscale (P < 0.001) and that Prd differed from PEP on the “positive symptoms” subscale (P < 0.001), as well as on “behavioural change” (P = 0.021), owing to difference on the item “impaired role function”. We used the brief psychiatric rating scale 24 items with anchor (BPRS24-EA) in addition to with the CAARMS, the AR group showed intermediate scores between controls and P subjects. Total scores of both scales were correlated (r = 0.408 ; P = 0.043) and the BPRS24-EA “positive symptoms” score was correlated with CAARMS’ scores on the “Positive symptoms” subscale (r = 0.456, P = 0.022), “emotional disturbance” (r = 0.506, P = 0.01), and “behavioural change” (r = 0.666 P = 0.001). We found no correlation between BPRS negative and depression subscales and any of the CAARMS’ subscales. When looking at its reliability, reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) showed excellent reliability for “positive symptoms”, “emotional disturbance”, “behavioural change” and “general psychopathology” (respectively r = 0.82, 0.75, 0.78, 0.84, 0.83) and moderate reliability for “cognitive change”, “negative symptoms” and “motor/physical change” (respectively r = 0.39, 0.59, 0.43). Overall, analysis of the results of construct validity, concurrent validity and reliability of the CAARMS indicates that the French version is valid and reliable. It is now available to develop and implement early detection programs in French speaking countries.
    L Encéphale 12/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.encep.2013.12.003 · 0.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite their widespread use, long acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics (APs), are often regarded with some negativity because of the assumption of punishment, control and insufficient evolution towards psychosocial development of patients. However, LAI APs have proved effective in schizophrenia and other severe psychotic disorders because they assure stable blood levels, leading to a reduction of the risk of relapse. Therapeutic opportunities have also arisen after introduction of newer, second-generation LAI APs in recent years. Newer LAI APs are more readily dosed optimally, may be better tolerated and are better suited to integrated rehabilitation programmes. This review outlines the older and newer LAI APs available for the treatment of schizophrenia, with considerations of past and present pharmacological and therapeutic issues. Traditional, evidence-based approaches to systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials are of limited utility in this area so this paper’s blending of experimental trials with observational research is particularly appropriate and effective.
    Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology 07/2014; DOI:10.1177/2045125314540297 · 1.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 27, 2014