Evaluation and Treatment of Children and Adolescents With Psychotic Symptoms
- 833 Downloads
In recent years, there have been increasing efforts to develop early detection and prevention strategies for patients at risk of the development of psychotic disorders. These efforts have led to improved recognition and characterization of psychotic symptoms in youth. This review focuses on the evaluation of children and adolescents with psychotic symptoms who are experiencing functional impairment but who do not meet current criteria for schizophrenia. For this article, emphasis is placed on the evaluation of symptoms, differential diagnosis, and consideration of potential interventions.
KeywordsUltra high risk (UHR) Prodrome At-risk Psychosis Psychotic symptoms Children Adolescents Schizophrenia Youth
Dr. Calkins has received research grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health (K08 Award). Drs. Algon and Yi contributed equally to this manuscript.
No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.Gearing, R. E. Evidence-based family psychoeducational interventions for children and adolescents with psychotic disorders. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;17(1).Google Scholar
- 2.• Masi G, Liboni F. Management of schizophrenia in children and adolescents: focus on pharmacotherapy. Drugs. 2011;71(2):179–208. In this systematic review, the authors offer a comprehensive overview of available literature on pharmacologic interventions for childhood-onset schizophrenia. The authors summarize limitations in several aspects of current pharmacotherapy, including low effect size, high rates of adverse effects, and low rates of remission. They highlight the need for further research with both randomized, placebo-controlled studies and long-term, naturalistic follow-up of large samples of patients with different age ranges. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, in NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658, S.A.a.M.H.S. Administration, Editor. 2011: Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
- 47.Norman RM, et al. The role of treatment delay in predicting 5-year outcomes in an early intervention program. Psychol Med. 2011;(Journal Article):1–11.Google Scholar
- 52.• Simon AE, et al. Ultra high-risk state for psychosis and non-transition: a systematic review. Schizophr Res. 2011;132(1):8–17. This systematic review summarizes available literature on outcomes of those identified as UHR. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria, and on average, 76% (range, 46%–92.6%) of UHR patients made no transition to psychosis during a follow-up period (range, 6–40 months). Characteristics of those who did not transition were poorly investigated. The authors highlight the limited specificity of current UHR criteria and the need for more studies investigating the characteristics associated with nontransition versus transition. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 56.•• de Koning MB, et al. Early intervention in patients at ultra high risk of psychosis: benefits and risks. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009;119(6):426–42. In this paper, early interventions in patients at UHR for psychosis are reviewed. The authors compiled preliminary publications and unpublished data from the German Research Network on Schizophrenia. Patients from the Bechdolf et al.  (2007) cohort who received CBT were found less likely to convert to psychosis or develop a late prodromal state at 1-year follow-up than those who received supportive counseling. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 62.• Yung AR, et al. Randomized controlled trial of interventions for young people at ultra high risk for psychosis: 6-month analysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 2011;72(4):430–40. The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial in youth at UHR for psychosis comparing CT plus low-dose risperidone with CT, supportive counseling, and a monitoring control condition. All treatment groups had improvements in measures of psychosis and depression, and no differences were found among groups. Declining transition rates, inadequate power, transition post-study, and a placebo effect in the monitoring control condition may explain these findings. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 67.•• Liu P, et al. An evidence map of interventions across premorbid, ultra-high risk and first episode phases of psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2010;123(1):37–44. The authors generated an evidence map of controlled trials, meta-analysis, and systematic reviews of biologic and psychosocial interventions in premorbid, UHR, and first-episode patients with psychosis. Most studies in this population involved first-episode patients, antipsychotic medication trials, and CBT trials. The authors concluded that trials of biologic interventions, other than antipsychotics and psychosocial treatments other than CBT, are lacking and are needed in these patients. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 71.• Amminger GP, et al. Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids for indicated prevention of psychotic disorders: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(2):146–54. The utility of omega-3 PUFAs to diminish the progression of high-risk youth with subthreshold psychotic symptoms to first-episode psychosis was explored in the randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The authors concluded that long-chain omega-3 PUFAs reduce the risk of transition to psychotic disorders and are a safe and well-tolerated prevention strategy in youth with subthreshold psychotic symptoms. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar