Elkhazen C, Chauchot F, Canceil O, Krebs M-O, Baylé F-J
Centre Médico-Psychologique, Secteur 14 et Réseau "PréPsy", 14-20 rue Mathurin-Régnier, 75015 Paris.
Encephale. 2003 Nov-Dec;29(6):469-77.
The concept of prodromal symptoms of schizophrenia has frequently been subject to debate. Authors widely admit the existence of early specific and non-specific signs preceding the first psychotic episode; however, they have yet to clearly demonstrate their ability to predict and specify the outbreak of a psychosis. These prodromal symptoms consist of behavioral abnormalities, pseudo-neurotic signs, subtle cognitive and affective changes. All these symptoms vary from patient to patient. In general, it is widely believed that future patients go through a variety of abnormal, subjective experiences that progressively develop during their pre-puberty and puberty periods. However, the limit of this assessment is that an individual could present the same prodromal symptoms without necessarily developing a psychotic illness, as a result of toxic intake, a situational crisis, etc. Furthermore, while the prodrome is a retrospective concept, its value and specificity can only be prospective, given that patients' descriptions of pre-morbid changes may be corrupted by inefficient memory reconstruction. DSM III-R included prodromal symptoms; individual presenting such symptoms would potentially present psychopathological vulnerability to psychosis regardless of associated genetic risk. Several investigations have shed doubts on their measurement's reliability; therefore, this classification is no longer present in the latest version (DSM IV). Moreover, recent neurodevelopemental hypothesis on schizophrenia have paved the way for possible early intervention, especially because early treatments could well improve illness prognosis. This viewpoint is reinforced by the improved tolerance of new anti-psychotic treatment. In this report, we review the key Articles published over the last 15 Years on this matter. We distinguish two schools of thought: on one hand, the German school referring to the validity of particular neuro-psychological symptoms: attention, perception, proprioperception which can be assessed with many evaluation tools: PAS, TDI, BSABS, SPI-A. The German school points to the fact that patients experimenting such changes could potentially be aware of their state. On the other hand, the Anglo-Saxon school refers to the detection of an "at risk" population. The Anglo-Saxons no longer refer to "prodromal symptoms" but rather to a "prodromal period" that extends to about one Year. This period would begin with the patient's first behavioral changes and extend until the first psychotic episode. Both schools agree that, at this stage, neither the recognition nor the description of the period preceding psychosis allows to effectively predict it. As a result, some Authors continue to refer to psychological changes forming a risk factor for the development of subsequent psychosis, rather than clear predictors of inevitable illness. As for relapses, prodromal signs and symptoms found in schizophrenic patients are both specific and non-specific. In most cases, patients experiment perceptions and behavioral changes before psychosis exacerbation. It is not uncommon for a substantial increase in prodromal symptoms to be followed by degradation in psychotic symptoms. On the other hand, many such increases in psychotic symptoms were not preceded by increases in possible prodromal symptoms; hence their importance in identifying the timing of an intervention, but many relapses will occur regardless of the detection of said symptoms.
精神分裂症前驱症状的概念一直备受争议。作者们普遍承认在首次精神病发作之前存在早期特异性和非特异性症状;然而,他们尚未明确证明这些症状预测和明确精神病发作的能力。这些前驱症状包括行为异常、假性神经症体征、细微的认知和情感变化。所有这些症状因人而异。一般来说,人们普遍认为未来的患者在青春期前和青春期会经历各种异常的主观体验,并逐渐发展。然而,这种评估的局限性在于,由于摄入毒素、情境危机等原因,个体可能出现相同的前驱症状,但不一定会发展为精神病性疾病。此外,虽然前驱期是一个回顾性概念,但其价值和特异性只能是前瞻性的,因为患者对病前变化的描述可能因记忆重建效率低下而受到影响。《精神疾病诊断与统计手册第三版修订本》(DSM III-R)纳入了前驱症状;出现这些症状的个体可能存在精神病性心理病理易感性,无论其相关的遗传风险如何。多项研究对这些症状测量的可靠性提出了质疑;因此,最新版本(DSM-IV)中不再有这种分类。此外,最近关于精神分裂症的神经发育假说为早期干预提供了可能,特别是因为早期治疗可能会改善疾病预后。新型抗精神病药物更好的耐受性强化了这一观点。在本报告中,我们回顾了过去15年中关于此事发表的关键文章。我们区分了两种观点:一方面,德国学派提及特定神经心理症状(注意力、感知、本体感觉)的有效性,这些症状可用多种评估工具(PAS、TDI、BSABS、SPI-A)进行评估。德国学派指出,经历这些变化的患者可能会意识到自己的状态。另一方面,盎格鲁-撒克逊学派则提及“高危”人群的检测。盎格鲁-撒克逊人不再提及“前驱症状”,而是指一个延长至约一年的“前驱期”。这个时期从患者的首次行为变化开始,一直持续到首次精神病发作。两派都认为,在这个阶段,对精神病发作前时期的识别和描述都无法有效预测发作。因此,一些作者继续提及构成后续精神病发展风险因素的心理变化,而不是必然疾病的明确预测指标。至于复发,在精神分裂症患者中发现的前驱体征和症状既有特异性的,也有非特异性的。在大多数情况下,患者在精神病症状加重之前会出现感知和行为变化。前驱症状大幅增加后精神病症状恶化的情况并不少见。另一方面,许多精神病症状的增加并没有前驱症状的增加作为先兆;因此,它们在确定干预时机方面很重要,但无论是否检测到这些症状,许多复发仍会发生。