S. Gülöksüz, Netherlands
Maastricht University Psychiatry and NeuropsychologyPresenter of 4 Presentations
Live Q&A
, 
Live Q&A
, 
ECP0026 - Risk Profiles for Mental Disorders
, ABSTRACT
Abstract Body
Prognostication is at the bedrock of clinical practice. In essence, diagnosis aims to inform clinicians for decision-making processes by providing a picture of future events such as course, outcome, and treatment response. To make a better clinical prediction on a case-by-case basis, diagnosis is enriched by individual characteristics and (bio)markers, with the aims of stratifying patients first and ultimately reaching the mountaintop: personalized medicine. However, there are two major obstacles on the road to personalized psychiatry. First, the current psychiatric diagnostic classification system is inadequate for tailoring individualized management plan, let alone for guiding the clinician for diagnosis-specific treatment selection—such that response to the same treatment plan largely varies among patients with the same psychiatric diagnosis, whereas patients with different psychiatric diagnoses benefit similarly from the same treatment protocol. Second, except for a few tests for ruling out other medical conditions, there exists no diagnostic, prognostic, or predictive (bio)marker in psychiatry. Risk profiling is even a more challenging and ambitious goal as early psychopathology is multidimensional, fluid, and pluripotent with heterotypic outcomes that cut across traditional diagnostic boundaries. By acknowledging this complexity and the shortcomings of current taxonomy, the field has recently shifted from risk profiling frameworks that rely on discrete diagnostic categories in isolation for prognostication (i.e. clinical high-risk for psychosis) to transdiagnostic clinical staging models. In this session, I will attempt to discuss where we are at with risk profiling in psychiatry and what steps need to be taken to achieve this ambitious goal.
S0030 - The Trough of Disillusionment: A Critique of the “Transition” Paradigm
, ABSTRACT
Abstract Body
I will attempt to address the issues surrounding the CHR concept in light of novel data and briefly discuss emerging alternatives. The root problem of the CHR early invention strategy is the exertion of reducing early nonspecific (pluripotent) psychopathology to a unidimensional model restricted only to positive psychotic symptoms, which define the binary categories of CHR and “transition” in help-seeking populations. This major conceptual handicap undermines the validity and clinical utility. The core predictor of the “transition” rate is the degree of the risk-enrichment and not the CHR status. Even with a significant pretest risk enrichment, the prognostic accuracy is mediocre. The incidence and “transition” rates of CHR in the community are very low; therefore, CHR does not represent a cost-effective clinical target—prevention paradox. CHR succeeding early pluripotent psychopathology is already late for intervention. “Transition” is not a categorical progression but a unidimensional shift in psychotic symptoms, and therefore, influenced by the fluctuation of psychotic symptoms, leading to both false positives and underestimation of nonpsychotic psychopathology. There exists no evidence for a specific effect of any intervention in preventing “transition”; therefore, CHR is not an ideal treatment target. Binary “transition” outcome does not represent a valid phenotype for research as “transition” rates are primarily driven by the sampling heterogeneity. The multidimensional psychopathology and functioning are more clinically relevant, overarching, and service-user-centered measures to define individual risk and outcome. Guided by the public health perspective, a universal early intervention framework, underscoring improved access to care, may represent a better strategy.