Abstract
To investigate clinical outcomes and unmet needs in individuals at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis presenting with Brief and Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms (BLIPS). Prospective naturalistic long-term (up to 9 years) cohort study in individuals meeting BLIPS criteria at the Outreach And Support In South-London (OASIS) up to April 2016. Baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, specific BLIPS features, preventive treatments received and clinical outcomes (psychotic and non-psychotic) were measured. Analyses included Kaplan Meier survival estimates and Cox regression methods. One hundred and two BLIPS individuals were followed up to 9 years. Across BLIPS cases, 35% had an abrupt onset; 32% were associated with acute stress, 45% with lifetime trauma and 20% with concurrent illicit substance use. The vast majority (80%) of BLIPS individuals, despite being systematically offered cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis, did not fully engage with it and did not receive the minimum effective dose. Only 3% of BLIPS individuals received the appropriate dose of cognitive behavioural therapy. At 4-year follow-up, 52% of the BLIPS individuals developed a psychotic disorder, 34% were admitted to hospital and 16% received a compulsory admission. At 3-year follow-up, 52% of them received an antipsychotic treatment; at 4-year follow-up, 26% of them received an antidepressant treatment. The presence of seriously disorganising and dangerous features was a strong poor prognostic factor. BLIPS individuals display severe clinical outcomes beyond their very high risk of developing psychosis and show poor compliance with preventive cognitive behavioural therapy. BLIPS individuals have severe needs for treatment that are not met by current preventive strategies.
Highlights
Individuals at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P hereafter (Fusar-Poli, 2017)) are detected by specialised clinical services through established psychometric assessment tools (Fusar-Poli et al, 2015a), in the context of a clinical interview (Fusar-Poli et al, 2017c). These tools assess whether the individual is meeting at least one of the three CHR-P subgroups: Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms (APS, about 85% of cases), Genetic Risk and Deterioration Syndrome (GRD, 5% of cases) or Brief and Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms (BLIPS, 10% of cases) (Yung et al, 2005; Fusar-Poli et al, 2016b)
This study aims at unravelling the broader clinical outcomes in individuals experiencing a BLIPS and highlighting their potential unmet needs
We included all CHR-P subjects referred for suspicion of psychosis risk to the Outreach and Support in South London (OASIS) service, South London and Maudsley (SLaM) NHS Foundation Trust (Fusar-Poli et al, 2013), who met a refined version of the BLIPS CAARMS 12/2006 criteria (Yung et al, 2006) up to April 2016
Summary
Individuals at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P hereafter (Fusar-Poli, 2017)) are detected by specialised clinical services through established psychometric assessment tools (Fusar-Poli et al, 2015a), in the context of a clinical interview (Fusar-Poli et al, 2017c) These tools assess whether the individual is meeting at least one of the three CHR-P subgroups: Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms (APS, about 85% of cases), Genetic Risk and Deterioration Syndrome (GRD, 5% of cases) or Brief and Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms (BLIPS, 10% of cases) (Yung et al, 2005; Fusar-Poli et al, 2016b).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
