Cargando…

How should we intervene in psychosis risk syndromes?

SUMMARY: Research diagnostic instruments such as the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS) are now able to reliably identify individuals with different types of psychosis risk syndromes (PRS). About one-third of individuals with PRS convert to a diagnosable psychotic disorder within th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Jijun, Jiang, Kaida, Zhang, Tianhong, Li, Huijun, Woodberry, Kristen, Seidman, Larry
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Editorial Department of the Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4054528/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24991127
http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2013.01.003
_version_ 1782320510035558400
author Wang, Jijun
Jiang, Kaida
Zhang, Tianhong
Li, Huijun
Woodberry, Kristen
Seidman, Larry
author_facet Wang, Jijun
Jiang, Kaida
Zhang, Tianhong
Li, Huijun
Woodberry, Kristen
Seidman, Larry
author_sort Wang, Jijun
collection PubMed
description SUMMARY: Research diagnostic instruments such as the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS) are now able to reliably identify individuals with different types of psychosis risk syndromes (PRS). About one-third of individuals with PRS convert to a diagnosable psychotic disorder within three years of the initial assessment. Currently available randomized controlled trials of interventions aimed at reducing the rate of psychotic conversion of PRS are promising, but they are too small and too short in duration to provide definitive conclusions about effectiveness. Given the high level of false positives (i.e., most individuals with PRS do not progress to frank psychosis) and the lack of definitive evidence about effectiveness, we recommend a staged approach to intervention in PRS that only uses antipsychotic medication after other, more benign approaches have been tried. At present the best approach appears to be to develop high-quality case-management systems for individuals with PRS that provide close follow-up, psychoeducation and psychosocial support to patients and family members, and, possibly, psychotherapeutic and pharmacological treatments (with antipsychotic medications or neuroprotective agents). The effectiveness of these proposed interventions needs to be tested in large randomized controlled trials that follow up subjects for at least three years.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4054528
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Editorial Department of the Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40545282014-07-02 How should we intervene in psychosis risk syndromes? Wang, Jijun Jiang, Kaida Zhang, Tianhong Li, Huijun Woodberry, Kristen Seidman, Larry Shanghai Arch Psychiatry Review SUMMARY: Research diagnostic instruments such as the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS) are now able to reliably identify individuals with different types of psychosis risk syndromes (PRS). About one-third of individuals with PRS convert to a diagnosable psychotic disorder within three years of the initial assessment. Currently available randomized controlled trials of interventions aimed at reducing the rate of psychotic conversion of PRS are promising, but they are too small and too short in duration to provide definitive conclusions about effectiveness. Given the high level of false positives (i.e., most individuals with PRS do not progress to frank psychosis) and the lack of definitive evidence about effectiveness, we recommend a staged approach to intervention in PRS that only uses antipsychotic medication after other, more benign approaches have been tried. At present the best approach appears to be to develop high-quality case-management systems for individuals with PRS that provide close follow-up, psychoeducation and psychosocial support to patients and family members, and, possibly, psychotherapeutic and pharmacological treatments (with antipsychotic medications or neuroprotective agents). The effectiveness of these proposed interventions needs to be tested in large randomized controlled trials that follow up subjects for at least three years. Editorial Department of the Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry 2013-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4054528/ /pubmed/24991127 http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2013.01.003 Text en Copyright © 2013 by Editorial Department of the Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
spellingShingle Review
Wang, Jijun
Jiang, Kaida
Zhang, Tianhong
Li, Huijun
Woodberry, Kristen
Seidman, Larry
How should we intervene in psychosis risk syndromes?
title How should we intervene in psychosis risk syndromes?
title_full How should we intervene in psychosis risk syndromes?
title_fullStr How should we intervene in psychosis risk syndromes?
title_full_unstemmed How should we intervene in psychosis risk syndromes?
title_short How should we intervene in psychosis risk syndromes?
title_sort how should we intervene in psychosis risk syndromes?
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4054528/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24991127
http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2013.01.003
work_keys_str_mv AT wangjijun howshouldweinterveneinpsychosisrisksyndromes
AT jiangkaida howshouldweinterveneinpsychosisrisksyndromes
AT zhangtianhong howshouldweinterveneinpsychosisrisksyndromes
AT lihuijun howshouldweinterveneinpsychosisrisksyndromes
AT woodberrykristen howshouldweinterveneinpsychosisrisksyndromes
AT seidmanlarry howshouldweinterveneinpsychosisrisksyndromes