The document discusses the concepts of At Risk Mental State (ARMS), Ultra High Risk (UHR), and Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome. ARMS refers to individuals at risk but not certain to develop psychosis. UHR criteria were introduced to identify those at the highest risk, defined as having attenuated psychotic symptoms, brief intermittent psychotic symptoms, or vulnerability factors plus functional impairment. Studies found 20-40% of UHR individuals developed psychosis within 1-2 years. Basic symptom criteria also predicted increased risk. While Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome was proposed for DSM-5, it was ultimately included only for further study and not as an official diagnosis.

1. AT RISK MENTAL STATE (ARMS),
ULTRA HIGH RISK (UHR) AND
ATTENUATED PSYCHOSIS SYNDROME
- Dr.SRIRAM.R

2. What is ARMS?
• Refer to these individuals who appear to be at risk of psychosis but
in whom psychosis is not inevitable. (McGorry and Singh, 1995)
• Not all people with operationally defined subthreshold forms of
psychosis will go on to develop a diagnosable psychotic disorder
such as schizophrenia.
• The ‘‘natural history’’ of the ARMS criteria was examined. A
transition rate of 41% was demonstrated. (Yung et al., 2003)
• Factors that predict an increased likelihood of the development of
psychosis are –
▫ Long duration of subthreshold (‘prodromal’) symptoms
▫ Poor functioning at presentation
▫ High levels of depressive symptoms
▫ Higher attenuated symptoms (c/f attenuated syndrome)

3. ARMS and “Prodrome”
• Prodromal means all the people who have it, WILL develop
psychosis (100% certainty).
• Prodrome of schizophrenia has initially been defined as “an
early or premonitory manifestation of impending disease, before
specific symptoms begin”
• So prodrome is a retrospective concept rather than a prospective
concept.
• If it is not clear 100% at the time of their presentation whether
psychosis will follow or not, then “ARMS” should be used.
• So ARMS is a prospective concept introduced for early identification
of psychotic patients.
• People with ARMS are whom intervention at an early stage, before
onset of frank psychosis, could be justified in order to prevent
further deterioration and suffering.

4. Why is ARMS/Prodrome important?
• Can lead to severe functional impairment, stigmatizing
disabilities and life-threathening consequences.
• Persistence of those disabilities prior to the onset of full positive
psychotic syndrome may lower the possibility of eventual
recovery (Schultze-Lutter et al. 2008, Marshall et al. 2005,
Perkins et al. 2005, Fusar-Poli et al. 2009)
• Preventive treatment could minimize alterations in brain structure,
as well as neurobiological changes, which could lead to substantial
improvement of the prognosis (Nelson et al. 2008)

5. Clinical Criteria
for Detection of Patients at High Risk
for psychosis
1. UHR criteria (Personal assessment and crisis
evaluation clinic, Melbourne)
2. Basic symptoms criteria

6. ULTRA HIGH RISK(UHR) CRITERIA

7. ULTRA HIGH RISK (UHR)
Because of the non-specific nature of the ARMS as
well as absence of the “Prospective” definition of
prodrome (Yung et al., 1996), the concept of
“Ultra high risk” for psychosis was introduced by
researchers in Melbourne, Victoria in 2003,
which has subsequently undergone many
changes, and further studies, the recent one
being in early 2014.
This concept of “Ultra High Risk” is a
refined extension of ARMS

8. 2003-04

9. • Subjects were recruited into this study from the
Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation
(PACE) Clinic, Melbourne, Australia (Yung et al.,
1995, 1996).
• All referrals to the Clinic between March 1995
and January 1999 were screened for inclusion.
• Referral sources included general practitioners,
psychiatric services, school and university
counseling services, and other support agencies
working with young people, such as drug and
alcohol services.

10. Subjects were included in the research program if
they
(a) were aged between 14 and 30 years
(b)Met criteria for one or more of the groups
outlined
(c) had not experienced a previous psychotic
episode
(d)were living in the Melbourne metropolitan area
Exclusion criteria were: intellectual disability, lack
of fluency in English, and presence of known
organic brain disorder or previous psychosis

11. Essentially there are three sets of separate intake
criteria FOR UHR people :
Group 1: Attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS)
Group 2: ‘‘Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic
Symptoms’’(‘‘BLIPS’’)
Group 3: Trait and State risk factors

12. Scales used in this study -
• Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale 24 item version
(BPRS) (McGorry et al., 1988)
and
• the Comprehensive Assessment of Symptoms
and History (CASH) (Andreasen, 1987) which
were used to measure the intensity of a psychotic
symptom

13. REVIEW OF SUBCOMPONENTS OF THE
SCALES USED

14. BPRS SUBCOMPONENTS included in
PACE criteria
• 11 – UNUSUAL THOUGHT CONTENT
• 10 – HALLUCINATIONS
• 9 – SUSPICIOUSNESS
• 15 – CONCEPTUAL DISORGANISATION

22. CASH rating scale – delusional
subcomponent included in PACE

23. Group 1 - Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms
• Symptoms that deviate from normal phenomena but which are not yet
frankly psychotic eg. Overvalued idea.
• The duration of attenuated psychotic symptoms should be <5 years.
• This limit on the duration of the attenuated psychotic features was
included as long duration trait phenomena (schizotypal personality
disorder) rather than acute mental state change.
• However, subjects meeting this criterion might well have other
symptoms, such as depressed mood or anxiety, lasting over 5 years.
• Thus the maximum duration of symptoms applies only to the actual
psychotic-like phenomena.

25. Group 2: ‘‘Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic
Symptoms (BLIPS)’’
• Symptoms of psychotic intensity but which have a total
duration of <7 days before resolving spontaneously.
• A recency criterion is included for this group: symptoms
must have occurred within the last year.
• Someone with a brief psychotic experience which
occurred over 1 year ago would be excluded from
the study as the period of risk is thought to be no longer
current.

27. Group 3 ‘‘Trait and State Risk Factors’’
• Have nonspecific symptoms such as
lowered mood or anxiety
plus
some trait risk factor for psychotic disorder (schizotypal PD) or a family
history of a psychotic disorder in a first-degree relative
at least 1 month to not longer than 5 years (to exclude trait
phenomena)
• Have marked disability or decrease in functioning.
• This severity criterion is necessary to exclude otherwise normal relatives
of patients with psychotic illnesses who have a brief period of mild
symptoms.
• A recency criterion of deterioration within the last year is also included
so that people who deteriorate but who then recover are not labeled as high
risk as the period of risk is thought to be no longer current.

29. When does subject become psychotic?
• If it is a delusion, it is acquisition of delusional conviction and
preoccupation with the belief.
• Essentially the definition of psychosis describes a clinical picture of
frank delusions, hallucinations, or formal thought disorder present
most of the time and for at least one week (Exclusion criteria in
this study)
• NOTE – This definition used here is for antipsychotic rx
rather than a diagnostic category as endpoint, and does
not conform to DSM-IV standards

31. RESULTS?
• Thirty-six subjects (34.6%) developed frank
psychotic symptoms within 12 months.
• Measures of symptom duration, functioning,
disability and psychopathology were made at
intake, 6 and 12 months.
• Poor functioning, long duration of symptoms,
high levels of depression and reduced attention
were all predictors of psychosis

32. 2006

33. RESULTS of 2006 study
• UHR+ individuals were significantly more likely
to become psychotic than UHR- individuals
(Odds Ratio 19.3, 95% CI 2.5, 150.5).
• Low functioning at baseline was associated with
psychosis onset in the whole sample and in the
UHR group.

34. A.R. Yung et al. / Schizophrenia Research 84 (2006) 57–66

35. RECENT STUDIES in UHR criteria
• More recent studies (Yung et al. 2007, McGorry et al. 2008,
Cannon et al. 2007) tends to show a lower rate of annual transition
(20-35%), which could be due to earlier detection, improved
efficacy of intervention and a “dilution effect” (greater portion of
population included)
• 30-35 % risk of psychosis within 1 to 2 years of follow-up among
UHR cases, a rate definitively higher that the incidence rate of
psychosis in the general young population (Cannon et al. 2007)
• A large longitudinal North American study published in 2009
shows that 40% of the 377 patients assessed by the Structured
Interview for Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS) as meeting criteria for
prodromal syndromes, converted to fully psychotic illness during
the 2.5 years of follow-up (Woods et al. 2009)

36. BASIC SYMPTOMS CRITERIA
(Koch et al. 2010,
Nelson et al. 2008)

38. • The annual conversion rate for sample meeting basic symptoms
criteria is around 25% (Koch et al. 2010)
• Rate of conversion reaches 70% in a study with a 110 patient’s
follow-up of 9.6 years, with a mean time to onset of 5.6 years
(Nelson et al. 2008)
• Some authors consider that the Basic (Cognitive) Symptoms
precede the onset of APS and BLIPS according to according to
Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental States (CAARMS)
criteria (Koutsouleris et al. 2009)
• A 2010 German retrospective study exploring the time-related
syndromic sequence preceding the onset of full-blown psychosis
(Shultze-Lutter et al. 2010) DID NOT CONFIRM ABOVE
FINDING.

39. 2014

40. • In a naturalistic 48-month follow-up study, the conversion rate to
first-episode psychosis was studied in 246 outpatients of an early
detection of psychosis service (FETZ); thereby, the association
between conversion, and the combined and singular use of UHR
criteria and COGDIS was compared.
• Patients that met UHR criteria and COGDIS (n = 127) at baseline
had a significantly higher risk of conversion (hr = 0.66 at month
48) and a shorter time to conversion than patients that met only
UHR criteria (n = 37; hr = 0.28) or only COGDIS (n = 30; hr = 0.23)

41. FINAL VERDICT???
UHR positivity PLUS COGDIS positivity =
GREATER RISK FOR CONVERSION to
PSYCHOSIS within 6 years.

42. ATTENUATED PSYCHOSIS SYNDROME

43. Copyright © American Psychiatric Association.
All rights reserved.
From: Should Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome Be a DSM-5
Diagnosis? (Carpenter and Van Os)
Am J Psychiatry. 2011;168(5):460-463. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10121816
Proposed Criteria for Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome
Figure Legend:

44. Where is it actually in DSM-5?
• At first glance, it seems to be included in “Conditions for further
study” in Page 783.
• Is it there in the main text? YES. It is given as an example 3 in
Other Specified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other
Psychotic disorder 298.8 (F28 in ICD-10 as Other nonorganic
psychotic disorder) in Page 122.
• As an “Other” disorder with its own numerical code, APS can now
be diagnosed and used to bill for insurance reimbursement,
although the DSM-5 Psychosis task group initially promised it
would not include it.
• So technically, ATTENUATED PSYCHOSIS SYNDROME is very
much an already existing diagnosis.

45. Why should it not have been included in
DSM-5?
• Many attenuated symptoms are quite stable and do not lead to more
severe illness, as in individuals who have schizotypal personality
disorder, who rarely become psychotic, or in the nearly 10% of
normal individuals who believe in sorcery or aliens or hear voices.
• No proven treatment for this syndrome. Attempts to institute early
antipsychotic treatment have shown no long-lasting effect and only
exposed these individuals to drug side effects.
• Research also requires a consensus among researchers and funding
agencies that a population of affected persons can be identified.

46. Contd.
• Premature diagnosis may have negative consequences on the
expectations and acceptance of others in the individual’s social
environment (People diagnosed are young).
• Field testing will assess whether the diagnosis can be made reliably
over time by different clinicians on the same patient and in
agreement with those who have conducted the initial research.
• ULTIMATELY, WHY IT should not have been INCLUDED IS
BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT FIELD TESTING AS WELL AS
INCONCLUSIVE TREATMENT PLANS AND/OR
INAPPROPRIATE TREATMENT.

47. TREATMENTS?
• Diminution of the transition rate about 15% in favor of the
antipsychotics which reached statistical significance only in
the studies using risperidone and amisulpride (McGorry et al.
2002, Rurhmann et al. 2007).
• A randomized, placebo-controlled trial (Amminger et al. 2010)
involving long chain omega-3 FA with a 12-week intervention
and 40-weeks monitoring period showed a reduction of 22.6% (28%
to 5%) of the cumulative risk of progression to full-threshold
psychosis for the intervention group.
• Long-chain Ω-3 fatty acids also significantly reduced positive,
negative and general symptoms and improved functioning,
compared with placebo.

48. • A randomized study (Morrison et al. 2004) comparing CBT
over 6 months with monthly monitoring in 58 patients meeting
UHR criteria showed a 15% reduction of the rate of conversion
to full blown psychosis.
• Seventy-nine patients were randomized to Integrated model
treatment (Modified Assertive Community Treatment, Social
skills training, and Psycho-education in multiple-family groups). At
two-year follow-up, the proportion diagnosed with a psychotic
disorder was 25.0% for patients randomized to integrated
treatment vs standard treatment (48.3%) (Nordentoft et al. 2006).

49. THANK YOU