Individualized prediction models in ADHD: a systematic review and meta-regression.

There have been increasing efforts to develop prediction models supporting personalised detection, prediction, or treatment of ADHD. We overviewed the current status of prediction science in ADHD by: (1) systematically reviewing and appraising available prediction models; (2) quantitatively assessing factors impacting the performance of published models. We did a PRISMA/CHARMS/TRIPOD-compliant systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42023387502), searching, until 20/12/2023, studies reporting internally and/or externally validated diagnostic/prognostic/treatment-response prediction models in ADHD. Using meta-regressions, we explored the impact of factors affecting the area under the curve (AUC) of the models. We assessed the study risk of bias with the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). From 7764 identified records, 100 prediction models were included (88% diagnostic, 5% prognostic, and 7% treatment-response). Of these, 96% and 7% were internally and externally validated, respectively. None was implemented in clinical practice. Only 8% of the models were deemed at low risk of bias; 67% were considered at high risk of bias. Clinical, neuroimaging, and cognitive predictors were used in 35%, 31%, and 27% of the studies, respectively. The performance of ADHD prediction models was increased in those models including, compared to those models not including, clinical predictors (ß = 6.54, p = 0.007). Type of validation, age range, type of model, number of predictors, study quality, and other type of predictors did not alter the AUC. Several prediction models have been developed to support the diagnosis of ADHD. However, efforts to predict outcomes or treatment response have been limited, and none of the available models is ready for implementation into clinical practice. The use of clinical predictors, which may be combined with other type of predictors, seems to improve the performance of the models. A new generation of research should address these gaps by conducting high quality, replicable, and externally validated models, followed by implementation research.

Meta-analytic prevalence of comorbid mental disorders in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis: the case for transdiagnostic assessment.

Comorbid mental disorders in subjects at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) may impact preventive care. We conducted a PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic meta-analysis, searching PubMed/PsycInfo up to June 21st, 2021 for observational studies/randomized controlled trials reporting on comorbid DSM/ICD-mental disorders in CHR-P subjects ( protocol ). The primary and secondary outcomes were baseline and follow-up prevalence of comorbid mental disorders. We also explored the association of comorbid mental disorders compared with CHR-P versus psychotic/non-psychotic control groups, their impact on baseline functioning and transition to psychosis. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, and assessed heterogeneity/publication bias/quality (Newcastle Ottawa Scale, NOS). We included 312 studies (largest meta-analyzed sample = 7834, any anxiety disorder, mean age = 19.98 (3.40), females = 43.88%, overall NOS > 6 in 77.6% of studies). The prevalence was 0.78 (95% CI = 0.73-0.82, k = 29) for any comorbid non-psychotic mental disorder, 0.60 (95% CI = 0.36-0.84, k = 3) for anxiety/mood disorders, 0.44 (95% CI = 0.39-0.49, k = 48) for any mood disorders, 0.38 (95% CI = 0.33-0.42, k = 50) for any depressive disorder/episode, 0.34 (95% CI = 0.30-0.38, k = 69) for any anxiety disorder, 0.30 (95% CI 0.25-0.35, k = 35) for major depressive disorders, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.08-0.51, k = 3) for any trauma-related disorder, 0.23 (95% CI = 0.17-0.28, k = 24) for any personality disorder, and <0.23 in other mental disorders (I2 > 50% in 71.01% estimates). The prevalence of any comorbid mental disorder decreased over time (0.51, 95% CI = 0.25-0.77 over 96 months), except any substance use which increased (0.19, 95% CI = 0.00-0.39, k = 2, >96 months). Compared with controls, the CHR-P status was associated with a higher prevalence of anxiety, schizotypal personality, panic, and alcohol use disorders (OR from 2.90 to 1.54 versus without psychosis), a higher prevalence of anxiety/mood disorders (OR = 9.30 to 2.02) and lower prevalence of any substance use disorder (OR = 0.41, versus psychosis). Higher baseline prevalence of alcohol use disorder/schizotypal personality disorder was negatively associated with baseline functioning (beta from -0.40 to -0.15), while dysthymic disorder/generalized anxiety disorder with higher functioning (beta 0.59 to 1.49). Higher baseline prevalence of any mood disorder/generalized anxiety disorder/agoraphobia (beta from -2.39 to -0.27) was negatively associated with transition to psychosis. In conclusion, over three-quarters of CHR-P subjects have comorbid mental disorders, which modulate baseline functionig and transition to psychosis. Transdiagnostic mental health assessment should be warranted in subjects at CHR-P.

Predicting bipolar disorder I/II in individuals at clinical high-risk: Results from a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: No systematic review has estimated the consistency and the magnitude of the risk of developing bipolar disorder I-II (BD-I/II) in individuals at clinical high risk for bipolar disorder (CHR-BD). METHODS: PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched until April 2022 in this pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42022346515) PRISMA-compliant systematic review to identify longitudinal studies in individuals meeting pre-defined CHR-BD criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and results were systematically synthesized around CHR-BD criteria across follow-up periods and different subgroups. RESULTS: Altogether, 13 studies were included reporting on nine prospective independent cohorts (n = 678 individuals at CHR-BD). The mean age of participants was 15.7 years (range 10.1-22.6 years), and 54.2 % were females. The most common CHR-BD subgroup was subthreshold mania (55.5 %), followed by BD-Not Otherwise Specified (BD-NOS: 33.3 %). Development of BD I/II ranged from 7.1 % to 23.4 % after 2 years. Development of BD-I ranged from 3.4 % at 4 years to 23 % at 8 years. Development of BD-II ranged from 10 % at 2 years to 63.8 % at 4 years. The risk of developing BD-I appeared highest in those meeting BD-NOS criteria (23 % at eight years). Predictors of development of BD were identified but remained mostly unreplicated. The quality of the included studies was moderate (NOS = 5.2 ± 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Emerging data from research studies point towards the promising utility of CHR-BD criteria. These studies may pave the way to the next generation of research, implementing detection, prognostication, and preventive interventions in individuals at CHR-BD identified and followed in clinical practice.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Efficacy of Pharmacological Interventions for Irritability and Emotional Dysregulation in Autism Spectrum Disorder and Predictors of Response.

OBJECTIVE: Emotional dysregulation and irritability are common in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We conducted the first meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of a broad range of pharmacological interventions for emotional dysregulation and irritability in ASD and predictors of response. METHOD: Following a preregistered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42021235779), we systematically searched multiple databases until January 1, 2021. We included placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluated the efficacy of pharmacological interventions and predictors of response for emotional dysregulation and irritability. We assessed heterogeneity using Q statistics and publication bias. We conducted subanalyses and meta-regressions to identify predictors of response. The primary effect size was the standardized mean difference. Quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2). RESULTS: A total of 2,856 individuals with ASD in 45 studies were included, among which 26.7% of RCTs had a high risk of bias. Compared to placebo, antipsychotics (standardized mean difference = 1.028, 95% CI = 0.824-1.232) and medications used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (0.471, 0.061-0.881) were significantly better than placebo in improving emotional dysregulation and irritability, whereas evidence of efficacy was not found for other drug classes (p > .05). Within individual medications, evidence of efficacy was found for aripiprazole (1.179, 0.838-1.520) and risperidone (1.074, 0.818-1.331). Increased rates of comorbid epilepsy (ß = -0.049, p = .026) were associated with a lower efficacy. CONCLUSION: Some pharmacological interventions (particularly risperidone and aripiprazole) have proved efficacy for short-term treatment of emotional dysregulation and irritability in ASD and should be considered within a multimodal treatment plan, taking into account also the tolerability profile and families' preferences.

Clinical outcomes in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis who do not transition to psychosis: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: The clinical outcomes of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR-P) who do not transition to psychosis are heterogeneous and inconsistently reported. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate longitudinally a wide range of outcomes in CHR-P individuals not developing psychosis. METHODS: "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" and "Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology"-compliant meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42021229212) searching original CHR-P longitudinal studies in PubMed and Web of Science databases up to 01/11/2021. As primary analysis, we evaluated the following outcomes within CHR-P non-transitioning individuals: (a) change in the severity of attenuated psychotic symptoms (Hedge's g); (b) change in the severity of negative psychotic symptoms (Hedge's g); (c) change in the severity of depressive symptoms (Hedge's g); (d) change in the level of functioning (Hedge's g); (e) frequency of remission (at follow-up). As a secondary analysis, we compared these outcomes in those CHR-P individuals who did not transition vs. those who did transition to psychosis at follow-up. We conducted random-effects model meta-analyses, sensitivity analyses, heterogeneity analyses, meta-regressions and publication bias assessment. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included (2756 CHR-P individuals, mean age = 20.4, 45.5% females). The mean duration of follow-up of the included studies was of 30.7 months. Primary analysis: attenuated psychotic symptoms [Hedges' g = 1.410, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.002-1.818]; negative psychotic symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.683, 95% CI 0.371-0.995); depressive symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.844, 95% CI 0.371-1.317); and functioning (Hedges' g = 0.776, 95% CI 0.463-1.089) improved in CHR-P non-transitioning individuals; 48.7% remitted at follow-up (95% CI 39.3-58.2%). Secondary analysis: attenuated psychotic symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.706, 95% CI 0.091-1.322) and functioning (Hedges' g = 0.623, 95% CI 0.375-0.871) improved in CHR-P individuals not-transitioning compared to those transitioning to psychosis, but there were no differences in negative or depressive symptoms or frequency of remission (p > 0.05). Older age was associated with higher improvements of attenuated psychotic symptoms (ß = 0.225, p = 0.012); publication years were associated with a higher improvement of functioning (ß = -0.124, p = 0.0026); a lower proportion of Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms was associated with higher frequencies of remission (ß = -0.054, p = 0.0085). There was no metaregression impact for study continent, the psychometric instrument used, the quality of the study or proportion of females. The NOS scores were 4.4 ± 0.9, ranging from 3 to 6, revealing the moderate quality of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes improve in CHR-P individuals not transitioning to psychosis but only less than half remit over time. Sustained clinical attention should be provided in the longer term to monitor these outcomes.

Probability of Transition to Psychosis in Individuals at Clinical High Risk: An Updated Meta-analysis.

Importance: Estimating the current likelihood of transitioning from a clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) to psychosis holds paramount importance for preventive care and applied research. Objective: To quantitatively examine the consistency and magnitude of transition risk to psychosis in individuals at CHR-P. Data Sources: PubMed and Web of Science databases until November 1, 2020. Manual search of references from previous articles. Study Selection: Longitudinal studies reporting transition risks in individuals at CHR-P. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Meta-analysis compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines; independent data extraction, manually and through digitalization of Kaplan-Meier curves. Main Outcome and Measures: Primary effect size was cumulative risk of transition to psychosis at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, and more than 4 years' follow-up, estimated using the numbers of individuals at CHR-P transitioning to psychosis at each time point. These analyses were complemented by meta-analytical Kaplan-Meier curves and speed of transition to psychosis (hazard rate). Random-effects meta-analysis, between-study heterogeneity analysis, study quality assessment, and meta-regressions were conducted. Results: A total of 130 studies and 9222 individuals at CHR-P were included. The mean (SD) age was 20.3 (4.4) years, and 5100 individuals (55.3%) were male. The cumulative transition risk was 0.09 (95% CI, 0.07-0.10; k = 37; n = 6485) at 0.5 years, 0.15 (95% CI, 0.13-0.16; k = 53; n = 7907) at 1 year, 0.20 (95% CI, 0.17-0.22; k = 30; n = 5488) at 1.5 years, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.17-0.22; k = 44; n = 7351) at 2 years, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.21-0.29; k = 19; n = 3114) at 2.5 years, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.22-0.29; k = 29; n = 4029) at 3 years, 0.27 (95% CI, 0.23-0.30; k = 16; n = 2926) at 4 years, and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.20-0.37; k = 14; n = 2301) at more than 4 years. The cumulative Kaplan-Meier transition risk was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.08-0.09; n = 4860) at 0.5 years, 0.14 (95% CI, 0.13-0.15; n = 3408) at 1 year, 0.17 (95% CI, 0.16-0.19; n = 2892) at 1.5 years, 0.20 (95% CI, 0.19-0.21; n = 2357) at 2 years, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.23-0.26; n = 1444) at 2.5 years, 0.27 (95% CI, 0.25-0.28; n = 1029) at 3 years, 0.28 (95% CI, 0.26-0.29; n = 808) at 3.5 years, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.27-0.30; n = 737) at 4 years, and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.32-0.38; n = 114) at 10 years. The hazard rate only plateaued at 4 years' follow-up. Meta-regressions showed that a lower proportion of female individuals (ß = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.01) and a higher proportion of brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms (ß = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.03) were associated with an increase in transition risk. Heterogeneity across the studies was high (I2 range, 77.91% to 95.73%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis, 25% of individuals at CHR-P developed psychosis within 3 years. Transition risk continued increasing in the long term. Extended clinical monitoring and preventive care may be beneficial in this patient population.

Longitudinal outcome of attenuated positive symptoms, negative symptoms, functioning and remission in people at clinical high risk for psychosis: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about clinical outcomes other than transition to psychosis in people at Clinical High-Risk for psychosis (CHR-P). Our aim was to comprehensively meta-analytically evaluate for the first time a wide range of clinical and functional outcomes beyond transition to psychosis in CHR-P individuals. METHODS: PubMed and Web of Science were searched until November 2020 in this PRISMA compliant meta-analysis (PROSPERO:CRD42020206271). Individual longitudinal studies conducted in individuals at CHR-P providing data on at least one of our outcomes of interest were included. We carried out random-effects pairwise meta-analyses, meta-regressions, and assessed publication bias and study quality. Analyses were two-tailed with α=0.05. FINDINGS: 75 prospective studies were included (n=5,288, age=20.0 years, females=44.5%). Attenuated positive symptoms improved at 12 (Hedges' g=0.753, 95%CI=0.495-1.012) and 24 (Hedges' g=0.836, 95%CI=0.463-1.209), but not ≥36 months (Hedges' g=0.315. 95%CI=-0.176-0.806). Negative symptoms improved at 12 (Hedges' g=0.496, 95%CI=0.315-0.678), but not 24 (Hedges' g=0.499, 95%CI=-0.137-1.134) or ≥36 months (Hedges' g=0.033, 95%CI=-0.439-0.505). Depressive symptoms improved at 12 (Hedges' g=0.611, 95%CI=0.441-0.782) and 24 (Hedges' g=0.583, 95%CI=0.364-0.803), but not ≥36 months (Hedges' g=0.512 95%CI=-0.337-1.361). Functioning improved at 12 (Hedges' g=0.711, 95%CI=0.488-0.934), 24 (Hedges' g=0.930, 95%CI=0.553-1.306) and ≥36 months (Hedges' g=0.392, 95%CI=0.117-0.667). Remission from CHR-P status occurred in 33.4% (95%CI=22.6-44.1%) at 12 months, 41.4% (95%CI=32.3-50.5%) at 24 months and 42.4% (95%CI=23.4-61.3%) at ≥36 months. Heterogeneity across the included studies was significant and ranged from I2=53.6% to I2=96.9%. The quality of the included studies (mean±SD) was 4.6±1.1 (range=2-8). INTERPRETATION: CHR-P individuals improve on symptomatic and functional outcomes over time, but these improvements are not maintained in the longer term, and less than half fully remit. Prolonged duration of care may be needed for this patient population to optimize outcomes. FUNDING: None.