scholarly journals Stati mentali a rischio di psicosi: identificazione e strategie attuali di trattamento [translation of “At-risk mental state for psychosis: identification and current treatment approaches” by Dr. Giulia Rioli]

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Thompson ◽  
Steven Marwaha ◽  
Matthew R. Broome
2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 186-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Thompson ◽  
Steven Marwaha ◽  
Matthew R. Broome

SummaryThe concept of an ‘at-risk mental state’ for psychosis arose from previous work attempting to identify a putative psychosis prodrome. In this article we summarise the current criteria used to identify ‘at-risk’ individuals, such as the ultra-high-risk (UHR) criteria, and the further identification of important clinical risk factors or biomarkers to improve prediction of who might develop a psychotic disorder. We also discuss important ethical issues in classifying and treating at-risk individuals, current treatment trials in this area and what treatment current services can offer.


NeuroImage ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 1531-1539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis-David Lord ◽  
Paul Allen ◽  
Paul Expert ◽  
Oliver Howes ◽  
Renaud Lambiotte ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Welsh ◽  
Sam Cartwright-Hatton ◽  
Adrian Wells ◽  
Libby Snow ◽  
Paul A. Tiffin

2007 ◽  
Vol 90 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 238-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
J LAPPIN ◽  
K MORGAN ◽  
L VALMAGGIA ◽  
M BROOME ◽  
J WOOLLEY ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. S501 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.M. Gabernet ◽  
M. Tost ◽  
A. Gutiérrez-Zotes ◽  
V. Sánchez-Gistau ◽  
M. Solé ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 281-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noriyuki Ohmuro ◽  
Masahiro Katsura ◽  
Chika Obara ◽  
Tatsuo Kikuchi ◽  
Yumiko Hamaie ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S164-S164
Author(s):  
Jessica Hartmann ◽  
Barnaby Nelson

2016 ◽  
Vol 174 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 24-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorien H. Nieman ◽  
Sara Dragt ◽  
Esther D.A. van Duin ◽  
Nadine Denneman ◽  
Jozefien M. Overbeek ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 43 (11) ◽  
pp. 2311-2325 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. R. Valmaggia ◽  
D. Stahl ◽  
A. R. Yung ◽  
B. Nelson ◽  
P. Fusar-Poli ◽  
...  

BackgroundMany research groups have attempted to predict which individuals with an at-risk mental state (ARMS) for psychosis will later develop a psychotic disorder. However, it is difficult to predict the course and outcome based on individual symptoms scores.MethodData from 318 ARMS individuals from two specialized services for ARMS subjects were analysed using latent class cluster analysis (LCCA). The score on the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS) was used to explore the number, size and symptom profiles of latent classes.ResultsLCCA produced four high-risk classes, censored after 2 years of follow-up: class 1 (mild) had the lowest transition risk (4.9%). Subjects in this group had the lowest scores on all the CAARMS items, they were younger, more likely to be students and had the highest Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score. Subjects in class 2 (moderate) had a transition risk of 10.9%, scored moderately on all CAARMS items and were more likely to be in employment. Those in class 3 (moderate–severe) had a transition risk of 11.4% and scored moderately severe on the CAARMS. Subjects in class 4 (severe) had the highest transition risk (41.2%), they scored highest on the CAARMS, had the lowest GAF score and were more likely to be unemployed. Overall, class 4 was best distinguished from the other classes on the alogia, avolition/apathy, anhedonia, social isolation and impaired role functioning.ConclusionsThe different classes of symptoms were associated with significant differences in the risk of transition at 2 years of follow-up. Symptomatic clustering predicts prognosis better than individual symptoms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document