Deng Wisteria, Chong Benjamin, Addington Jean, Bearden Carrie E, Cadenhead Kristin S, Cornblatt Barbara A, Keshavan Matcheri, Mathalon Daniel H, Perkins Diana O, Stone William, Walker Elaine F, Woods Scott W, Cannon Tyrone D
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2025 Feb;10(2):195-202. doi: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2024.08.020. Epub 2024 Sep 10.
Although the clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) criteria are widely used to ascertain individuals at heightened risk for imminent onset of psychosis, it remains controversial whether CHR-P status defines a diagnostic construct in its own right. In a previous study, CHR-P nonconverters were observed to follow 3 distinct trajectories in symptoms and functioning: remission, partial remission, and maintenance of symptoms and functional impairments at subthreshold levels of intensity.
Here, we utilized the NAPLS3 (North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study phase 3) sample (N = 806) to determine whether 1) the same trajectory groups can be detected when assessing symptoms at 2-month intervals over an 8-month period and 2) the resulting trajectory groups differ from each other and from healthy control participants and converting CHR-P cases in terms of risk factors, comorbidities, and functional outcomes.
Three distinctive subgroups within the CHR nonconverters were identified, largely paralleling those observed previously. Importantly, these extracted groups, together with non-CHR control participants and CHR converters, differed from each other significantly on putative etiological risk factors (e.g., predicted risk scores, physiological and self-report measures of stress), affective comorbidities, and functional outcomes, thus providing converging evidence supporting the validity of the identified trajectory groups.
This pattern, together with the fact that even the subgroup of CHR-P nonconverters who showed a remission trajectory deviated from healthy control participants, supports treating the CHR-P syndrome not only as a status that denotes risk for onset of full psychosis but also as a marker of ongoing distress for a population that is in need of interventions.
尽管临床精神病高危(CHR-P)标准被广泛用于确定即将发生精神病的高危个体,但CHR-P状态本身是否定义了一种诊断结构仍存在争议。在先前的一项研究中,观察到CHR-P未转化者在症状和功能方面遵循3种不同的轨迹:缓解、部分缓解以及症状和功能损害维持在亚阈值强度水平。
在此,我们利用北美前驱期纵向研究第三阶段(NAPLS3)样本(N = 806)来确定:1)在8个月期间每隔2个月评估症状时,是否能检测到相同的轨迹组;2)所得到的轨迹组在危险因素、共病和功能结局方面是否彼此不同,以及与健康对照参与者和转化为精神病的CHR-P病例不同。
在CHR未转化者中识别出了三个不同的亚组,在很大程度上与先前观察到的亚组相似。重要的是,这些提取出的组,连同非CHR对照参与者和CHR转化者,在假定的病因危险因素(例如,预测风险评分、压力的生理和自我报告测量)、情感共病和功能结局方面彼此有显著差异,从而提供了支持所识别轨迹组有效性的汇聚证据。
这种模式,以及即使是显示缓解轨迹的CHR-P未转化者亚组也与健康对照参与者不同这一事实,支持将CHR-P综合征不仅视为表示完全精神病发作风险的一种状态,而且视为需要干预的人群持续痛苦的一个标志。