Residency · Residency · Child Adolescent Psychiatry
Clinical High Risk for Psychosis in Adolescents
Overview
Clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis, also called the psychosis prodrome or attenuated psychosis syndrome, identifies individuals experiencing subthreshold psychotic symptoms who are at elevated risk of converting to a full psychotic disorder. CHR states most commonly present during adolescence and young adulthood, between ages 12 and 25, coinciding with the peak age of psychosis onset. Conversion rates from CHR to full psychosis are approximately 20-35% within 2-3 years, meaning the majority of CHR individuals do not develop a psychotic disorder. This creates a central tension in the field: whether early pharmacological intervention is warranted to prevent conversion, or whether it is potentially harmful by exposing non-converters to unnecessary antipsychotic side effects. Current consensus favors psychosocial interventions — CBT, family therapy, and supportive treatment — as first-line for CHR, with antipsychotics reserved for cases that convert to full psychosis. Regardless of conversion outcome, CHR individuals have high rates of comorbid depression, anxiety, substance use, and functional impairment that warrant treatment in their own right.
Defining CHR: Assessment Tools
Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes (SIPS/SOPS)
The SIPS is the most widely used CHR assessment tool in North America. The SOPS (Scale of Psychosis-Risk Symptoms) is the rating scale embedded within the SIPS. It assesses five positive symptom domains: unusual thought content, suspiciousness, grandiosity, perceptual abnormalities, and disorganized communication. Each is rated from 0 to 6, with scores of 3-5 indicating the CHR range (attenuated symptoms) and a score of 6 indicating full psychosis (conversion).
Three CHR Syndromes (SIPS-defined)
| CHR Syndrome | Abbreviation | Key Features | Timeframe |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attenuated Positive Symptom Syndrome | APSS | Subthreshold positive symptoms (ideas of reference, perceptual disturbances with insight) | Within past year |
| Brief Intermittent Psychotic Symptom Syndrome | BIPS | Frank psychotic symptoms that are brief (hours to days) and spontaneously resolve | Within past 3 months |
| Genetic Risk and Deterioration Syndrome | GRD | First-degree relative with psychosis OR schizotypal PD, plus marked functional decline | Within past year |
The SIPS defines three CHR syndromes. Attenuated Positive Symptom Syndrome (APSS) is the most common CHR presentation and involves subthreshold positive symptoms — ideas of reference that are not fully delusional, perceptual disturbances with retained insight, and unusual thought content — present within the past year. Brief Intermittent Psychotic Symptom Syndrome (BIPS) involves frank psychotic symptoms that are brief (lasting hours to days) and spontaneously resolve, with onset within the past 3 months. Genetic Risk and Deterioration Syndrome (GRD) is defined by having a first-degree relative with a psychotic disorder or the individual having schizotypal personality disorder, combined with a marked functional decline in the past year.
Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS)
The CAARMS is an alternative to the SIPS that is more widely used internationally, particularly in Australia and Europe. It assesses a similar construct of subthreshold positive symptoms and functional decline. It was developed by the PACE (Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation) clinic in Melbourne.
Conversion Risk and Prediction
Conversion Rates
| Timeframe | Cumulative Conversion Rate |
|---|---|
| 6 months | ~18% |
| 1 year | ~22% |
| 2 years | ~29% |
| 3 years | ~36% |
| Non-converters | ~64-80% |
Meta-analytic data from Fusar-Poli et al. (2012) show that approximately 18% of CHR individuals convert by 6 months, 22% by 1 year, 29% by 2 years, and 36% by 3 years. Risk is highest in the first two years and attenuates over time. Conversion rates have decreased in more recent cohorts compared to earlier studies, possibly due to selection bias, earlier detection, or treatment effects.
Predictors of Conversion
Several factors predict higher conversion risk: higher baseline positive symptom severity (especially unusual thought content and suspiciousness), greater functional decline, social isolation and withdrawal, cannabis use, family history of psychosis, and cognitive decline in processing speed and verbal memory. No single biomarker is currently sufficiently predictive for individual clinical use.
The "False Positive" Problem
Since approximately 65-80% of CHR individuals do not convert to psychosis, any intervention must account for this large non-converting majority. Antipsychotic treatment would expose the majority to unnecessary medication side effects, including the significant metabolic consequences discussed in the context of youth antipsychotic prescribing. This represents the central ethical tension in the CHR field.
Clinical Presentation in Adolescents
The changes that precede recognition of CHR status are often subtle. Adolescents may show declining academic performance, social withdrawal from peers and family, increased suspiciousness or paranoid ideation (while retaining some insight), unusual perceptual experiences (hearing one's name called, seeing shadows, feeling that things look different), disorganized or unusual thinking (magical thinking, ideas of reference), mood changes including depression, anxiety, and irritability, sleep disturbance, and a general functional decline from their prior baseline. Adolescents may not spontaneously report attenuated psychotic symptoms, making targeted questioning essential. The presentation frequently overlaps with anxiety, depression, and substance use, which may be the chief complaints that bring the patient to clinical attention.
Comorbidity and Functional Impairment
Even among those who do not convert to psychosis, CHR individuals carry substantial psychiatric morbidity. Depression is present in 40-60%, anxiety disorders in 30-50%, substance use disorders in 20-40%, and ADHD in approximately 15-20%. Social dysfunction, isolation, and academic or occupational failure are common. Functional impairment may persist even when attenuated positive symptoms improve. Treating these comorbid conditions is clinically important regardless of whether conversion ultimately occurs.
Treatment Approaches
Psychosocial Interventions (First-Line)
CBT for CHR
CBT is the most evidence-based psychosocial treatment for CHR. It targets normalizing unusual experiences, cognitive restructuring of paranoid and referential thinking, stress management, behavioral activation, and social skills development. Multiple RCTs, including those by Morrison et al. (2004) and van der Gaag et al. (2012), have shown that CBT reduces conversion rates and improves symptoms and functioning. CBT also addresses the comorbid depression and anxiety that are so prevalent in this population.
Family Therapy and Psychoeducation
Family intervention provides education about CHR, emphasizes stress reduction, and builds communication skills. Reducing expressed emotion and family conflict is a key goal. Supporting families through the uncertainty of the CHR period — the agonizing question of "will my child develop schizophrenia?" — is an important therapeutic function. Family-focused treatment (FFT) adapted for CHR has shown promise in early research.
Supported Employment/Education
Maintaining engagement in school or work is protective. Academic support, accommodations, and vocational planning should be incorporated into the treatment plan. Functional recovery is a key treatment goal alongside symptom management.
Omega-3 Fatty Acids
Amminger et al. (2010) published an RCT showing that omega-3 supplementation (1.2 g/day of EPA plus DHA) reduced conversion rates compared to placebo. However, subsequent larger trials, including NAPLS-3, did not replicate this finding. The intervention carries low risk and may be considered, but the evidence is not robust enough to recommend it strongly.
Pharmacological Interventions
The Controversy Over Antipsychotics in CHR
The debate over antipsychotic use in CHR is substantive and unresolved. Arguments in favor include the potential to prevent or delay conversion, the analogy to treating prodromal symptoms in other medical illnesses, and the established finding that longer DUP worsens outcomes. Arguments against include the fact that most CHR individuals will not convert (exposing them to unnecessary side effects), the significant metabolic risks especially in antipsychotic-naive youth, limited evidence that antipsychotics prevent conversion long-term, and the possibility that medication may discourage engagement with psychosocial treatment. McGlashan et al. (2006) found that olanzapine reduced symptoms during treatment compared to placebo in CHR, but conversion rates equalized after discontinuation, suggesting no lasting protective effect. McGorry et al. (2002) found that low-dose risperidone plus CBT reduced conversion during treatment compared to supportive therapy, but effects waned after stopping. The current consensus is that antipsychotics should not be used as first-line for CHR and should be reserved for individuals who convert to full psychosis.
Treating Comorbid Conditions
SSRIs for depression and anxiety are appropriate and commonly prescribed in CHR. Stimulants for ADHD can be used cautiously, with monitoring for exacerbation of psychotic symptoms. Substance use interventions, particularly for cannabis cessation, are important. Sleep hygiene and, when needed, pharmacological management of insomnia should be addressed.
Ethical Considerations
Several ethical issues surround CHR identification and management. Labeling an adolescent as "high risk for psychosis" when they may never develop psychosis carries potential for stigma and psychological burden. Balancing risk requires weighing the risk of untreated psychosis against the risk of unnecessary treatment for the non-converting majority. Informed consent demands that families receive clear communication about conversion rates, the uncertainty inherent in the CHR diagnosis, and the risk-benefit profile of available interventions. For some CHR individuals, surveillance — regular monitoring without active treatment — may be the most appropriate approach.



Clinical Pearls
Most CHR individuals — 65-80% — will not develop a psychotic disorder, and clinicians should avoid conveying a deterministic prognosis to families. CHR identification is nonetheless valuable because it flags a period of elevated psychiatric risk and functional impairment that warrants treatment regardless of whether conversion occurs. CBT is the best-supported psychosocial intervention for CHR and should be the first-line approach. Antipsychotics are not recommended as first-line for CHR and should be reserved for individuals who convert to full psychosis. Treating comorbid depression, anxiety, and substance use is essential and may independently reduce conversion risk. Cannabis use is a modifiable risk factor for conversion, and cannabis cessation should be actively addressed in treatment. The uncertainty inherent in the CHR diagnosis is distressing for families, and clinicians must provide clear, honest communication about what CHR means and what it does not mean. Regular monitoring with SIPS/SOPS assessments every 3-6 months allows for early detection if conversion occurs.
References
- Fusar-Poli, P. et al. (2012). Predicting psychosis: a meta-analysis of transition outcomes in individuals at high clinical risk. Archives of General Psychiatry, 69(3), 220-229.
- Morrison, A.P. et al. (2004). Cognitive therapy for the prevention of psychosis in people at ultra-high risk. British Journal of Psychiatry, 185(4), 291-297.
- McGlashan, T.H. et al. (2006). Randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus placebo in patients prodromally symptomatic for psychosis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(5), 790-799.
- Amminger, G.P. et al. (2010). Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids for indicated prevention of psychotic disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(2), 146-154.
- Addington, J. et al. (2011). North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS 2): overview and recruitment. Schizophrenia Research, 142(1-3), 77-82.
- McGorry, P.D. et al. (2002). Randomized controlled trial of interventions designed to reduce the risk of progression to first-episode psychosis. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(10), 921-928.
