Psychosis Polyrisk Score (PPS) for the Detection of Individuals At-Risk and the Prediction of Their Outcomes

Primary prevention in individuals at Clinical High Risk for psychosis (CHR-P) can ameliorate the course of psychotic disorders. Further advancements of knowledge have been slowed by the standstill of the field, which is mostly attributed to its epidemiological weakness. The latter, in turn, underlies the limited identification power of at-risk individuals and the relatively modest ability of CHR-P interviews to rule-in a state of risk for psychosis. In the first part, this perspective review discusses these limitations and traces a new approach to overcome them. Theoretical concepts to support a Psychosis Polyrisk Score (PPS) integrating genetic and non-genetic risk and protective factors for psychosis are presented. The PPS hinges on recent findings indicating that risk enrichment in CHR-P samples is accounted for by the accumulation of non-genetic factors such as: parental and sociodemographic risk factors, perinatal risk factors, later risk factors, and antecedents. In the second part of this perspective review we present a prototype of a PPS encompassing core predictors beyond genetics. The PPS prototype may be piloted in the next generation of CHR-P research and combined with genetic information to refine the detection of individuals at-risk of psychosis and the prediction of their outcomes, and ultimately advance clinical research in this field

Psychosis Polyrisk Score (PPS) for the Detection of Individuals At-Risk and the Prediction of Their Outcomes

Primary prevention in individuals at Clinical High Risk for psychosis (CHR-P) can ameliorate the course of psychotic disorders. Further advancements of knowledge have been slowed by the standstill of the field, which is mostly attributed to its epidemiological weakness. The latter, in turn, underlies the limited identification power of at-risk individuals and the relatively modest ability of CHR-P interviews to rule-in a state of risk for psychosis. In the first part, this perspective review discusses these limitations and traces a new approach to overcome them. Theoretical concepts to support a Psychosis Polyrisk Score (PPS) integrating genetic and non-genetic risk and protective factors for psychosis are presented. The PPS hinges on recent findings indicating that risk enrichment in CHR-P samples is accounted for by the accumulation of non-genetic factors such as: parental and sociodemographic risk factors, perinatal risk factors, later risk factors, and antecedents. In the second part of this perspective review we present a prototype of a PPS encompassing core predictors beyond genetics. The PPS prototype may be piloted in the next generation of CHR-P research and combined with genetic information to refine the detection of individuals at-risk of psychosis and the prediction of their outcomes, and ultimately advance clinical research in this field

Genomic Relationships, Novel Loci, and Pleiotropic Mechanisms across Eight Psychiatric Disorders

Genetic influences on psychiatric disorders transcend diagnostic boundaries, suggesting substantial pleiotropy of contributing loci. However, the nature and mechanisms of these pleiotropic effects remain unclear. We performed analyses of 232,964 cases and 494,162 controls from genome-wide studies of anorexia nervosa, attention-deficit/hyper-activity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, and Tourette syndrome. Genetic correlation analyses revealed a meaningful structure within the eight disorders, identifying three groups of inter-related disorders. Meta-analysis across these eight disorders detected 109 loci associated with at least two psychiatric disorders, including 23 loci with pleiotropic effects on four or more disorders and 11 loci with antagonistic effects on multiple disorders. The pleiotropic loci are located within genes that show heightened expression in the brain throughout the lifespan, beginning prenatally in the second trimester, and play prominent roles in neurodevelopmental processes. These findings have important implications for psychiatric nosology, drug development, and risk prediction.Peer reviewe

Cannabidiol inhibits THC-elicited paranoid symptoms and hippocampal-dependent memory impairment

Community-based studies suggest that cannabis products that are high in Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) but low in cannabidiol (CBD) are particularly hazardous for mental health. Laboratory-based studies are ideal for clarifying this issue because THC and CBD can be administered in pure form, under controlled conditions. In a between-subjects design, we tested the hypothesis that pre-treatment with CBD inhibited THC-elicited psychosis and cognitive impairment. Healthy participants were randomised to receive oral CBD 600 mg (n=22) or placebo (n=26), 210 min ahead of intravenous (IV) THC (1.5 mg). Post-THC, there were lower PANSS positive scores in the CBD group, but this did not reach statistical significance. However, clinically significant positive psychotic symptoms (defined a priori as increases ≥ 3 points) were less likely in the CBD group compared with the placebo group, odds ratio (OR)=0.22 (χ²=4.74, p<0.05). In agreement, post-THC paranoia, as rated with the State Social Paranoia Scale (SSPS), was less in the CBD group compared with the placebo group (t=2.28, p<0.05). Episodic memory, indexed by scores on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Task-revised (HVLT-R), was poorer, relative to baseline, in the placebo pre-treated group (-10.6 ± 18.9%) compared with the CBD group (-0.4% ± 9.7 %) (t=2.39, p<0.05). These findings support the idea that high-THC/low-CBD cannabis products are associated with increased risks for mental health

Risk and protective factors for mental disorders beyond genetics: an evidence-based atlas.

Decades of research have revealed numerous risk factors for mental disorders beyond genetics, but their consistency and magnitude remain uncer-tain. We conducted a "meta-umbrella" systematic synthesis of umbrella reviews, which are systematic reviews of meta-analyses of individual studies, by searching international databases from inception to January 1, 2021. We included umbrella reviews on non-purely genetic risk or protective factors for any ICD/DSM mental disorders, applying an established classification of the credibility of the evidence: class I (convincing), class II (highly suggestive), class III (suggestive), class IV (weak). Sensitivity analyses were conducted on prospective studies to test for temporality (reverse causation), TRANSD criteria were applied to test transdiagnosticity of factors, and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was employed to address the quality of meta-analyses. Fourteen eligible umbrella reviews were retrieved, summarizing 390 meta-analyses and 1,180 associations between putative risk or protective factors and mental disorders. We included 176 class I to III evidence associations, relating to 142 risk/protective factors. The most robust risk factors (class I or II, from prospective designs) were 21. For dementia, they included type 2 diabetes mellitus (risk ratio, RR from 1.54 to 2.28), depression (RR from 1.65 to 1.99) and low frequency of social contacts (RR=1.57). For opioid use disorders, the most robust risk factor was tobacco smoking (odds ratio, OR=3.07). For non-organic psychotic disorders, the most robust risk factors were clinical high risk state for psychosis (OR=9.32), cannabis use (OR=3.90), and childhood adversities (OR=2.80). For depressive disorders, they were widowhood (RR=5.59), sexual dysfunction (OR=2.71), three (OR=1.99) or four-five (OR=2.06) metabolic factors, childhood physical (OR=1.98) and sexual (OR=2.42) abuse, job strain (OR=1.77), obesity (OR=1.35), and sleep disturbances (RR=1.92). For autism spectrum disorder, the most robust risk factor was maternal overweight pre/during pregnancy (RR=1.28). For attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), they were maternal pre-pregnancy obesity (OR=1.63), maternal smoking during pregnancy (OR=1.60), and maternal overweight pre/during pregnancy (OR=1.28). Only one robust protective factor was detected: high physical activity (hazard ratio, HR=0.62) for Alzheimer's disease. In all, 32.9% of the associations were of high quality, 48.9% of medium quality, and 18.2% of low quality. Transdiagnostic class I-III risk/protective factors were mostly involved in the early neurodevelopmental period. The evidence-based atlas of key risk and protective factors identified in this study represents a benchmark for advancing clinical characterization and research, and for expanding early intervention and preventive strategies for mental disorders

Risk and protective factors for mental disorders beyond genetics: an evidence-based atlas.

Decades of research have revealed numerous risk factors for mental disorders beyond genetics, but their consistency and magnitude remain uncer-tain. We conducted a "meta-umbrella" systematic synthesis of umbrella reviews, which are systematic reviews of meta-analyses of individual studies, by searching international databases from inception to January 1, 2021. We included umbrella reviews on non-purely genetic risk or protective factors for any ICD/DSM mental disorders, applying an established classification of the credibility of the evidence: class I (convincing), class II (highly suggestive), class III (suggestive), class IV (weak). Sensitivity analyses were conducted on prospective studies to test for temporality (reverse causation), TRANSD criteria were applied to test transdiagnosticity of factors, and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was employed to address the quality of meta-analyses. Fourteen eligible umbrella reviews were retrieved, summarizing 390 meta-analyses and 1,180 associations between putative risk or protective factors and mental disorders. We included 176 class I to III evidence associations, relating to 142 risk/protective factors. The most robust risk factors (class I or II, from prospective designs) were 21. For dementia, they included type 2 diabetes mellitus (risk ratio, RR from 1.54 to 2.28), depression (RR from 1.65 to 1.99) and low frequency of social contacts (RR=1.57). For opioid use disorders, the most robust risk factor was tobacco smoking (odds ratio, OR=3.07). For non-organic psychotic disorders, the most robust risk factors were clinical high risk state for psychosis (OR=9.32), cannabis use (OR=3.90), and childhood adversities (OR=2.80). For depressive disorders, they were widowhood (RR=5.59), sexual dysfunction (OR=2.71), three (OR=1.99) or four-five (OR=2.06) metabolic factors, childhood physical (OR=1.98) and sexual (OR=2.42) abuse, job strain (OR=1.77), obesity (OR=1.35), and sleep disturbances (RR=1.92). For autism spectrum disorder, the most robust risk factor was maternal overweight pre/during pregnancy (RR=1.28). For attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), they were maternal pre-pregnancy obesity (OR=1.63), maternal smoking during pregnancy (OR=1.60), and maternal overweight pre/during pregnancy (OR=1.28). Only one robust protective factor was detected: high physical activity (hazard ratio, HR=0.62) for Alzheimer's disease. In all, 32.9% of the associations were of high quality, 48.9% of medium quality, and 18.2% of low quality. Transdiagnostic class I-III risk/protective factors were mostly involved in the early neurodevelopmental period. The evidence-based atlas of key risk and protective factors identified in this study represents a benchmark for advancing clinical characterization and research, and for expanding early intervention and preventive strategies for mental disorders

Modeling Linkage Disequilibrium Increases Accuracy of Polygenic Risk Scores

Polygenic risk scores have shown great promise in predicting complex disease risk and will become more accurate as training sample sizes increase. The standard approach for calculating risk scores involves linkage disequilibrium (LD)-based marker pruning and applying a p value threshold to association statistics, but this discards information and can reduce predictive accuracy. We introduce LDpred, a method that infers the posterior mean effect size of each marker by using a prior on effect sizes and LD information from an external reference panel. Theory and simulations show that LDpred outperforms the approach of pruning followed by thresholding, particularly at large sample sizes. Accordingly, predicted R2 increased from 20.1% to 25.3% in a large schizophrenia dataset and from 9.8% to 12.0% in a large multiple sclerosis dataset. A similar relative improvement in accuracy was observed for three additional large disease datasets and for non-European schizophrenia samples. The advantage of LDpred over existing methods will grow as sample sizes increase