|
Book Title: Treating and Preventing Adolescent Mental Health Disorders
> pp. [155]-[159]
UNDEFINED: AUTHORS
Treating and Preventing Adolescent Mental Health Disorders
Print ISBN 9780195173642, 2005
pp. [155]-[159]
question without a simple answer. Universal and selected interventions will have the greatest likelihood of reaching those individuals most in need of intervention—that is they will have the greatest sensitivity. However, these may also be too expensive to implement successfully. Indicated interventions will be more feasible, simply because of their more restricted nature, but this will prevent such protocols from reaching some individuals who may benefit from them. In fact, interventions administered at multiple levels may work better than protocols designed to intervene only at a single level. Perhaps the least consensus in the design of early intervention trials is on the form of the intervention. The effectiveness of various early-intervention programs is currently an active area of research and, quite fortunately, multiple types of interventions have shown promise for keeping at least some high-risk individuals from developing schizophrenia. In fact, educational programs, as well as psychosocial and psychotherapeutic interventions, have all shown some degree of promise in either reducing the duration of untreated psychosis or postponing the onset of schizophrenia, which suggests that these methods may also be useful in decreasing the likelihood of schizophrenic illness altogether. In Norway, for example, the establishment of a comprehensive, multilevel, multitarget psychosis education and early detection network reduced the average duration of untreated psychosis in the catchment area by approximately 75% over a 5-year period (Johannessen et al., 2001). The preventive effects of various psychotherapeutic techniques, such as individual cognitive behavior therapy or family-based cognitive remediation, have yet to be evaluated with great rigor, but pharmacologic intervention has received a fair amount of empirical support for efficacy in preventing or delaying the transition from prodrome to psychosis. A variety of psychopharmacological compounds may have efficacy in suppressing schizophrenia, including second-generation antipsychotic drugs such as risperidone, antidepressants such as the selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitors, mood stabilizers such as lithium and valproate, and antianxiolytics such as benzodiazepines, but few of
these have been tested for such a role. Of these, the novel antipsychotic risperidone has shown tremendous promise in preventing descent into schizophrenia among prodromal individuals when compared with needs-based therapy alone, even up to 6 months after discontinuation of treatment (McGorry & Killackey, 2002). Risperidone has also been shown to improve neuropsychological functioning among the nonpsychotic, nonprodromal schizotaxic relatives of schizophrenic patients (Tsuang et al., 2002). In light of these successes, it is not so troubling that consensus is difficult to reach on which form of intervention is the most appropriate; it seems that the method of intervention is not quite as important as the fact that any intervention is better than none. There are, however, a number of problems with current early-intervention efforts. For example, because our screening criteria cannot definitively identify individuals who are at risk for developing psychosis, early-intervention efforts are sometimes administered to individuals who do not need them or cannot benefit from them. Alternatively, because the warning signs of psychotic decompensation sometimes go unrecognized, some individuals who should have received intervention do not. Furthermore, little is known about the potential harm that may be caused by informing individuals that they are at risk for schizophrenia, but presumably there may be some negative consequences of receiving this knowledge. In addition, the benefits of some of our most promising early-intervention and prevention protocols (pharmacotherapies) may be offset by the potential side effects of individual compounds. A careful analysis of the benefits and the risks of early intervention has led to the general consensus that intervention in the prodrome of schizophrenia is warranted. There is less agreement about the feasibility of selective and indicated intervention in the premorbid phase of schizotaxic individuals, who may or may not ultimately develop a schizophrenia-spectrum illness. Studies have shown that pharmacological intervention can improve the subclinical deficits experienced by some nonschizophrenic genetically at-risk individuals; however, at such an early stage of research and
end p.155
PRINTED FROM Treating and Preventing Adolescent Mental Health Disorders (www.oup.com/amhi-treatingpreventing)
© Copyright Oxford University Press, 2006. All Rights Reserved
with a limited understanding of schizotaxia, it is not yet clear if these benefits outweigh their associated risks when the selection of proper candidates for intervention may still be suboptimal. As the phenomenology and time course of schizotaxia becomes better understood, cri
teria for inclusion in preventive and early-intervention efforts will improve, along with the efficiency of such protocols in treating only those individuals who will receive maximal benefit while sustaining little harm.
end p.156
PRINTED FROM Treating and Preventing Adolescent Mental Health Disorders (www.oup.com/amhi-treatingpreventing)
© Copyright Oxford University Press, 2006. All Rights Reserved
CHAPTER 8 Research Agenda for Schizophrenia
end p.157
PRINTED FROM Treating and Preventing Adolescent Mental Health Disorders (www.oup.com/amhi-treatingpreventing)
© Copyright Oxford University Press, 2006. All Rights Reserved
We have learned a great deal about the early course of schizophrenia during the past two decades, leading to therapeutic optimism. However, several key areas of research continue to be a priority. First, we need to identify specific clinical characteristics in the premorbid and prodromal phases that can help us predict the individuals at a high risk for developing psychosis. Second, we do not know how to prospectively identify the early beginnings of the psychotic illness with an adequate degree of reliability to be able to intervene early. We also need to better understand the pathways to care for these patients. Educating the public and health care providers in early signs and symptoms can reduce the delay in care. Third, we need to further clarify the clinical features in the first psychotic episode that can help us predict subsequent illness course. Finally, we need to better understand the neurodevelopmental and neurodeteriorative processes that may underlie both the emergence and the subsequent course of the first psychotic episode. It is readily apparent that the single greatest research need regarding adolescent-onset schizophrenia is simply more studies of this form of the illness apart from its more traditional manifestations. While schizophrenia is among the most widely studied psychiatric disorder, adolescent schizophrenia is rarely examined as a clinical entity onto itself. Yet it is necessary to conduct such studies, as early-onset forms may not just reflect an enrichment of risk factors for schizophrenia or greater severity of the illness, they may in fact have their own distinct etiologies and separate ranges of severity. To determine the degree of continuity and etiological similarity between adolescent-and adult-onset schizophrenia, twin, adoption, and longitudinal studies of the early-onset form of the disease should be considered a high priority. The study of schizophrenia can serve as a model for how adolescent schizophrenia should itself be studied. More specifically, the precursors of adolescent schizophrenia must be delineated through the examination of individuals in the
premorbid stages of the illness. The most effective way to accomplish this goal may be through the use of the genetic high-risk paradigm. The ascertainment of individuals who are at the highest genetic risk for illness (e.g., children of parents with schizophrenia) would allow the collection of a sample of individuals who also have the highest likelihood of developing a severe form of illness. If adolescent schizophrenia is etiologically related to other forms of the illness and represents a more severe or genetically driven form of the disease, then such a sample would also be enriched with individuals who will develop schizophrenia during adolescence. Longitudinal studies of these individuals, beginning before adolescence and continuing throughout the period of disease risk, would allow investigtors to identify changes that signal the impending expression of latent schizophrenia susceptibility. Once detected, such features could then be compared to similar profiles of premorbid change in adult preschizophrenia to determine if any of these emergent abnormalities are specific for adolescent versus adult onset of the illness. If adolescent-onset specific changes were elucidated, these would then form the screening criteria for subsequent early intervention and, ultimately, prevention efforts for schizophrenia in adolescents. The developments in genetics and neurobiology provide investigators with powerful new tools to extend our undertanding of the evolution of schizophrenia. Such an understanding will go beyond the current emphasis on symptomatic characterizations and will include measures of behavioral and neurobiological endophenotypic vulnerability markers. Adolescence is pivotal for brain maturation and longitudinal data are necessary to establish bridges between the phenotypic manifestations of schizophrenia and the neurobiologic substrate. It is likely that multimodal intervention methods will be shaped by such knowledge in a way that will eventually delay, ameliorate, and perhaps even thwart the devastating impact of schizophrenia.
end p.158
PRINTED FROM Treating and Preventing Adolescent Mental Health Disorders (www.oup.com/amhi-treatingpreventing)
© Copyright Oxford University Press, 2006. All Rights Reserved
Part III
Anxiety Disorders
COMMISSION ON ADOLESCENT ANXIETY DISORDERS
|
Edna B. Foa, Commission Chair
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
end p.159
|
|
|
|