Early psychotic experiences: Interventions, problems and perspectives.

Psychotic or psychotic-like experiences and symptoms may precede and be indicative of later psychosis emergence. DSM-5 has introduced Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome (APS) as a condition for further study, arguing for its clinical validity and the need for identifying sub- threshold psychotic states. Early psychosis intervention has an already established role in reducing the Duration of Untreated Psychosis (DUP), delaying psychosis onset and relieving Ultra High Risk (UHR) individuals from their presenting symptoms. Pharmacological and mainly psycho-therapeutical approaches are suggested for this purpose. Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) seems to have clear evidence of favorable outcome concerning transition to psychosis rates, omega-3 fatty acids lower but promising evidence, while low-dose antipsychotic medication or antidepressant treatment may seem beneficial, but it remains unclear if the reported favorable effects persist in the long term and how long intervention in UHR subjects should be given for. Case management and close monitoring based on principles of social psychiatry are considered key elements for the management of UHR individuals. However, the blazing case about early psychosis concerns the accurate specification of the prodromal stage of psychosis, which may set the basis for meaningful and effective early intervention. Although psychometric tools have been developed and provide a common criteria-based recognition method, debate is alive and well regarding "false positive" cases, since most UHR subjects will not finally develop psychosis. Moreover, transition rates to psychosis have been declining over the years, leading to fierce criticism over the validity of the UHR/ APS state and legitimacy of its treatment. On this framework, ethical issues of stigmatizing through unnecessary diagnosing and antipsychotics' prescribing are matters of serious questioning. Clinical heterogeneity and high comorbidity are further implications of the UHR state. Current research emphasizes on improving validity of inclusion criteria and formulating personalised and clinical stage- based intervention strategies. In order to do that, early psychosis recognition and intervention services are established throughout the world, trying to contribute in research by applying clinical, cognitive or neuropsychological criteria. Nevertheless, in the majority of so far conducted studies, samples sizes are considered small and duration of follow-up short, which are limitations yet to overcome. Other scientific voices argue that the UHR state might represent a non-specific risk factor for psychiatric disorders in general and not necessarily for psychosis and tend to examine the UHR and early intervention idea under the prism of subthreshold or early mental distress state. Either way, recognizing and intervening early in emerging psychiatric states, especially in those with psychotic or psychotic-like symptomatology, share indisputable benefits under the broader concept of prevention, setting a strong scientific-clinical rationale for service provision to help-seeking people and the possibility of changing the course for those with vulnerability to psychotic illnesses.