Schizophrenia Research Forum - A Catalyst for Creative Thinking
Home Profile Membership/Get Newsletter Log In Contact Us
 For Patients & Families
What's New
Recent Updates
SRF Papers
Current Papers
Search All Papers
Search Comments
News
Research News
Conference News
Plain English
Forums
Current Hypotheses
Idea Lab
Online Discussions
Virtual Conferences
Interviews
Resources
What We Know
SchizophreniaGene
Animal Models
Drugs in Trials
Research Tools
Grants
Jobs
Conferences
Journals
Community Calendar
General Information
Community
Member Directory
Researcher Profiles
Institutes and Labs
About the Site
Mission
History
SRF Team
Advisory Board
Support Us
How to Cite
Fan (E)Mail
The Schizophrenia Research Forum web site is sponsored by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and was created with funding from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health.
Research News
back to News Search
ICOSR 2007—NAPLS Targets the Schizophrenia Prodrome

Editor's Note: A symposium on Friday, 30 March 2007, at the International Congress on Schizophrenia Research in Colorado Springs, detailed progress in prodromal research. Wendy Hasenkamp, from the Atlanta VA/Emory School of Medicine, reports here on "The North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study: a multi-site approach to prodromal schizophrenia research."

22 April 2007. Studies show that early treatment of psychosis is related to improved clinical outcome in schizophrenia (McGlashan, 1988; 1998; also see SRF related news story). The critical time period before the onset of psychosis during which functional impairments emerge and attenuated symptoms may be identified is known as the schizophrenia prodrome. The prodrome is characterized by symptoms such as cognitive impairments, marked social and/or behavioral decline, and changes in affect (emergence of anxiety and depression). In hopes of improving the possibility of early detection and intervention, as well as furthering our understanding of the developmental process underlying psychotic disorders, research has recently intensified in the once-controversial area of the schizophrenia prodrome (an SRF related news story summarizes some recent developments in this field). In 2004, principal investigators for eight research projects in the U.S. and Canada agreed to combine data on psychosis risk factors and clinical outcomes for nearly 900 subjects enrolled in prodromal schizophrenia research programs. This consortium, known as the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) is under the direction of Robert Heinssen at the NIMH (Addington et al., 2007). The 10 participating investigators are Jean Addington (University of Toronto), Kristin Cadenhead and Ming Tsuang (UCSD), Tyrone Cannon (UCLA), Barbara Cornblatt (Zucker Hillside Hospital), Thomas McGlashan and Scott Woods (Yale University), Diana Perkins (UNC Chapel Hill), Larry Seidman (Harvard University), and Elaine Walker (Emory University). The NAPLS symposium at ICOSR marked the second time that the consortium has presented its early findings, the first being in Birmingham, England, last October at the 5th International Conference on Early Psychosis.

Jean Addington served as chair, and began the symposium with an overview of the consortium’s methods and operational definitions. To ensure comparability of data across the eight sites, all NAPLS researchers use the same diagnostic criteria to identify individuals with prodromal symptoms. The Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS; Miller et al., 2003), created by Thomas McGlashan, was employed to rate each subject on the degree of severity of five classes of symptoms: unusual thought content/delusional ideas, suspiciousness, grandiosity, perceptual abnormalities, and conceptual disorganization. Based on SIPS scores, the consortium has identified three prodromal syndromes: attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS), genetic risk plus deterioration (GRD), and brief intermittent psychotic symptoms (BIPS). Addington then described how the current NAPLS subjects were divided into six groups: individuals believed to be at heightened risk for psychosis (HRP); those at genetic high risk but without prodromal symptoms; those who meet criteria for schizotypal personality disorder but do not display prodromal symptoms; those who have already developed psychotic symptoms; and two comparison groups, those who failed to meet criteria for being at elevated risk (helpseekers), and non-psychiatric controls. Having explained the basic approach of the consortium, Addington turned the floor over to three NAPLS members who detailed more specific questions being asked about this interesting prodromal subject population.

Sifting through these many abbreviations adopted by NAPLS to describe syndromes and subgroups, Tyrone Cannon discussed the rate of conversion to psychosis within the sample. Conversion was defined as one or more positive symptoms reaching the psychotic level of conviction, frequency, and duration (>1 hour/day for 4 or more days within the past month) and impact (disorganizing or dangerous). Among the HRP subjects, risk for conversion was 17 percent per year, with an ultimate conversion rate of 35 percent after 30 months of follow-up. Delving deeper, Cannon explained his efforts to improve our ability to predict the likelihood of conversion for a given individual based on initial risk factors. His group identified five variables (a mixture of SIPS scores and clinical, neurocognitive, and historical variables assessed at baseline) as being the most important for successful for prediction: genetic risk with decreased functioning, unusual thought content, suspicion/paranoia, level of social functioning, and drug use of any kind. Using a single-variable model, the positive prediction power reached 50 percent; Cannon suggested that about 80 percent would be needed to justify pre-emptive intervention programs. However, when more variables were added to the model, positive predictive power improved. Models incorporating two out of five symptoms reached up to 69 percent, while three out of five symptoms yielded up to 74 percent. However, gains in predictive power were achieved with corresponding losses in sensitivity of the models. While still a work in progress, these findings suggest that NAPLS efforts are resulting in improved risk ascertainment algorithms, which may help identify individuals for early intervention.

Barbara Cornblatt continued the discussion by describing her work on relating the duration of prodromal symptoms to clinical outcome. To determine the outcome associated with earlier-appearing symptoms, she compared two similar subject groups. The first comprised 357 individuals who, based on SIPS criteria, displayed moderate to severe attenuated positive symptoms for 12 months or less (APS); the second group was 100 subjects who met the same SIPS criteria, but had a longer duration of symptoms (long duration prodromals, LDP). She found that after 30 months, the APS group had a conversion rate of 38 percent compared to only 14 percent in the LDP group. However, she noted the caveat that LDP subjects were younger and more functionally impaired than APS subjects, but had a lower degree of severity of positive symptoms. This suggests that the LDP group may be at an earlier phase of illness and conversion rates may increase with continued follow-up. Cornblatt concluded that while this study gave strong support for the predictive validity of the APS syndrome as defined by the SIPS, the results also suggest that LDP may be a risk group of its own, and perhaps a longer risk window should be incorporated into future prodromal studies.

The last NAPLS member to speak at the symposium was Diana Perkins, who focused on the development of various functional impairments throughout the prodrome. In order to compare data on functional outcomes across sites, Cannon and Cornblatt have developed two 10-point scales rating social (Global Social Functioning Scale, GSFS) and vocational (Instrumental Role Functional Scale, IRFS) functioning (Cornblatt et al., 2007). Perkins examined the 357 subjects who met SIPS criteria for APS, as well as the 11 subjects who were classified as having BIPS syndrome. Using scores from the new social and vocational functioning sales, she compared these “at-risk” subjects to 196 healthy comparison subjects. She found, as expected, that the at-risk group had lower scores on both the social and vocational functioning scales, as well as lower Global Assessment of Function (GAF) scores, than the healthy controls. Perhaps most importantly, however, the at-risk subjects had experienced a significantly greater decline in function (as measured by the change in scores on the GSFS, IRFS and GAF) than controls in the year prior to analysis. Thus, Perkins suggested that early identification and intervention may be helped by targeting the initial declines in social and vocational functioning that are seen in these at-risk states.

The NAPLS consortium has recently published its rationale, design, and some preliminary findings in Schizophrenia Bulletin (Addington et al., 2007). NAPLS is one of two large collaborative studies of populations at clinical or genetic risk for psychosis; the European Prediction of Psychosis Study (EPOS) is made up of six sites and undertakes similar research in Europe (Klosterkotter et al., 2005). It is thanks to groups like these that we may soon have improved ability to target psychosis and hopefully provide much needed intervention at the early stages of psychiatric disease.— Wendy Hasenkamp.

 
Comments on News and Primary Papers
Comment by:  Tara Niendam
Submitted 11 May 2007 Posted 11 May 2007

I just wanted to clarify a mistake in the article above. The new social and role functioning measures discussed by Barbara Cornblatt were incorrectly identified. The correct titles are Global Functioning Scale: Social (Auther et al., 2006) and Global Functioning Scale: Role (Niendam et al., 2006). Data on these new measures were recently published as part of a collaboration between LIJ and UCLA (Cornblatt et al., 2007). The references for these measures are listed below. Researchers interested in using these measures can contact either author (A. Auther or T. Niendam) for copies of the measures.

References:

Auther, A.M., Smith, C.W. & Cornblatt, B.A. (2006). Global Functioning: Social Scale (GF: Social). Glen Oaks, NY: Zucker Hillside Hospital.

Niendam, T.A., Bearden, C.E., Johnson, J.K. & Cannon, T.D. (2006). Global Functioning: Role Scale (GF: Role). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.

View all comments by Tara Niendam


Comment by:  Patrick McGorryAlison Yung (Disclosure)
Submitted 17 May 2007 Posted 18 May 2007

The key issue of the confounding of the transition process and the related predictive analyses by uncontrolled treatment, especially with antipsychotic medications, has not been highlighted in the report. It would be illuminating to ask the collaborators to comment on this issue in the Forum. The randomized controlled trial conducted by Dr. McGlashan and colleagues (many of whom are now NAPLS investigators) was a stronger design since it contained a placebo arm which allows purer study of the prediction issue ( McGlashan et al., 2006). This should be supported in the future by NIMH and other funders in our opinion.

View all comments by Patrick McGorry
View all comments by Alison Yung


Comment by:  Tyrone Cannon
Submitted 5 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008

The case for testing antipsychotic drugs as prophylactic measures rests entirely on their empirically proven efficacy in decreasing the severity of positive psychotic symptoms among patients with established illness. Initial applications of these agents in studies of prodromal patients have produced discouraging results on the primary question of preventive effects. Among patients with established illness whose positive symptoms respond to antipsychotics, such treatment must be continuous in order to maintain treatment gains; it is therefore not surprising that trials of antipsychotics in prodromal patients would show effects of drug on positive symptom reduction only during the active treatment phase. With no demonstrable prophylactic effects, and with little or no effect on motivational symptoms or functional disability, antipsychotic drug treatment in the prodromal phase is clearly not the “silver bullet” of psychosis prevention.

Some have suggested that randomized controlled studies of antipsychotics provide the most coherent platform from which to monitor natural...  Read more


View all comments by Tyrone Cannon
Submit a Comment on this News Article
Make a comment on this news article. 

If you already are a member, please login.
Not sure if you are a member? Search our member database.

*First Name  
*Last Name  
Affiliation  
Country or Territory  
*Login Email Address  
*Confirm Email Address  
*Password  
*Confirm Password  
Remember my Login and Password?  
Get SRF newsletter with recent commentary?  
 
Enter the code as it is shown below:
This code helps prevent automated registrations.

Please note: A member needs to be both registered and logged in to submit a comment.

Comment:

(If coauthors exist for this comment, please enter their names and email addresses at the end of the comment.)

References:


SRF News
SRF Comments
Text Size
Reset Text Size
Email this pageEmail this page

Share/Bookmark
Copyright © 2005- 2014 Schizophrenia Research Forum Privacy Policy Disclaimer Disclosure Copyright