Elodie Sprüngli-Toffel, Erich Studerus, Logos Curtis, Caroline Conchon, Luis Alameda, Barbara Bailey, Camille Caron, Carmina Haase, Julia Gros, Evelyn Herbrecht, Christian G Huber, Anita Riecher-Rössler, Philippe Conus, Alessandra Solida, Marco Armando, Afroditi Kapsaridi, Mathieu Mercapide Ducommun, Paul Klauser, Kerstin Jessica Plessen, Sébastien Urben, Anne Edan, Nathalie Nanzer, Ana Liso Navarro, Maude Schneider, Davina Genoud, Chantal Michel, Jochen Kindler, Michael Kaess, Dominic Oliver, Paolo Fusar-Poli, Stefan Borgwardt, Christina Andreou
{"title":"个体化测试前风险评估,为临床高危精神病患者的治疗决策提供指导。","authors":"Elodie Sprüngli-Toffel, Erich Studerus, Logos Curtis, Caroline Conchon, Luis Alameda, Barbara Bailey, Camille Caron, Carmina Haase, Julia Gros, Evelyn Herbrecht, Christian G Huber, Anita Riecher-Rössler, Philippe Conus, Alessandra Solida, Marco Armando, Afroditi Kapsaridi, Mathieu Mercapide Ducommun, Paul Klauser, Kerstin Jessica Plessen, Sébastien Urben, Anne Edan, Nathalie Nanzer, Ana Liso Navarro, Maude Schneider, Davina Genoud, Chantal Michel, Jochen Kindler, Michael Kaess, Dominic Oliver, Paolo Fusar-Poli, Stefan Borgwardt, Christina Andreou","doi":"10.1016/j.sjpmh.2024.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR) states are associated with an increased risk of transition to psychosis. However, the predictive value of CHR screening interviews is dependent on pretest risk enrichment in referred patients. This poses a major obstacle to CHR outreach campaigns since they invariably lead to risk dilution through enhanced awareness. A potential compensatory strategy is to use estimates of individual pretest risk as a 'gatekeeper' for specialized assessment. We aimed to test a risk stratification model previously developed in London, UK (OASIS) and to train a new predictive model for the Swiss population.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The sample was composed of 513 individuals referred for CHR assessment from six Swiss early psychosis detection services. Sociodemographic variables available at referral were used as predictors whereas the outcome variable was transition to psychosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Replication of the risk stratification model developed in OASIS resulted in poor performance (Harrel's c=0.51). Retraining resulted in moderate discrimination (Harrel's c=0.67) which significantly differentiated between different risk groups. The lowest risk group had a cumulative transition incidence of 6.4% (CI: 0-23.1%) over two years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Failure to replicate the OASIS risk stratification model might reflect differences in the public health care systems and referral structures between Switzerland and London. Retraining resulted in a model with adequate discrimination performance. The developed model in combination with CHR assessment result, might be useful for identifying individuals with high pretest risk, who might benefit most from specialized intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":101179,"journal":{"name":"Spanish Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Individualized pretest risk estimates to guide treatment decisions in patients with clinical high risk for psychotic disorders.\",\"authors\":\"Elodie Sprüngli-Toffel, Erich Studerus, Logos Curtis, Caroline Conchon, Luis Alameda, Barbara Bailey, Camille Caron, Carmina Haase, Julia Gros, Evelyn Herbrecht, Christian G Huber, Anita Riecher-Rössler, Philippe Conus, Alessandra Solida, Marco Armando, Afroditi Kapsaridi, Mathieu Mercapide Ducommun, Paul Klauser, Kerstin Jessica Plessen, Sébastien Urben, Anne Edan, Nathalie Nanzer, Ana Liso Navarro, Maude Schneider, Davina Genoud, Chantal Michel, Jochen Kindler, Michael Kaess, Dominic Oliver, Paolo Fusar-Poli, Stefan Borgwardt, Christina Andreou\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sjpmh.2024.09.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR) states are associated with an increased risk of transition to psychosis. However, the predictive value of CHR screening interviews is dependent on pretest risk enrichment in referred patients. This poses a major obstacle to CHR outreach campaigns since they invariably lead to risk dilution through enhanced awareness. A potential compensatory strategy is to use estimates of individual pretest risk as a 'gatekeeper' for specialized assessment. We aimed to test a risk stratification model previously developed in London, UK (OASIS) and to train a new predictive model for the Swiss population.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The sample was composed of 513 individuals referred for CHR assessment from six Swiss early psychosis detection services. Sociodemographic variables available at referral were used as predictors whereas the outcome variable was transition to psychosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Replication of the risk stratification model developed in OASIS resulted in poor performance (Harrel's c=0.51). Retraining resulted in moderate discrimination (Harrel's c=0.67) which significantly differentiated between different risk groups. The lowest risk group had a cumulative transition incidence of 6.4% (CI: 0-23.1%) over two years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Failure to replicate the OASIS risk stratification model might reflect differences in the public health care systems and referral structures between Switzerland and London. Retraining resulted in a model with adequate discrimination performance. The developed model in combination with CHR assessment result, might be useful for identifying individuals with high pretest risk, who might benefit most from specialized intervention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spanish Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spanish Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpmh.2024.09.001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spanish Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpmh.2024.09.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Individualized pretest risk estimates to guide treatment decisions in patients with clinical high risk for psychotic disorders.
Introduction: Clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR) states are associated with an increased risk of transition to psychosis. However, the predictive value of CHR screening interviews is dependent on pretest risk enrichment in referred patients. This poses a major obstacle to CHR outreach campaigns since they invariably lead to risk dilution through enhanced awareness. A potential compensatory strategy is to use estimates of individual pretest risk as a 'gatekeeper' for specialized assessment. We aimed to test a risk stratification model previously developed in London, UK (OASIS) and to train a new predictive model for the Swiss population.
Method: The sample was composed of 513 individuals referred for CHR assessment from six Swiss early psychosis detection services. Sociodemographic variables available at referral were used as predictors whereas the outcome variable was transition to psychosis.
Results: Replication of the risk stratification model developed in OASIS resulted in poor performance (Harrel's c=0.51). Retraining resulted in moderate discrimination (Harrel's c=0.67) which significantly differentiated between different risk groups. The lowest risk group had a cumulative transition incidence of 6.4% (CI: 0-23.1%) over two years.
Conclusion: Failure to replicate the OASIS risk stratification model might reflect differences in the public health care systems and referral structures between Switzerland and London. Retraining resulted in a model with adequate discrimination performance. The developed model in combination with CHR assessment result, might be useful for identifying individuals with high pretest risk, who might benefit most from specialized intervention.