Prodromal phase: Differences in prodromal symptoms, risk factors and markers of vulnerability in first episode mania versus first episode psychosis with onset in late adolescence or adulthood

• Published in: Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica Vol. 146; no. 1; pp. 36 - 50
• Main Authors: Verdolini, Norma, Borràs, Roger, Sparacino, Giulio, Garriga, Marina, Sagué‐Vilavella, Maria, Madero, Santiago, Palacios‐Garrán, Roberto, Serra, Maria, Forte, Maria Florencia, Salagre, Estela, Aedo, Alberto, Salgado‐Pineda, Pilar, Salvatierra, Irene Montoro, Sánchez Gistau, Vanessa, Pomarol‐Clotet, Edith, Ramos‐Quiroga, Josep Antoni, Carvalho, Andre F., Garcia‐Rizo, Clemente, Undurraga, Juan, Reinares, María, Martinez Aran, Anabel, Bernardo, Miguel, Vieta, Eduard, Pacchiarotti, Isabella, Amoretti, Silvia
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.07.2022; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Adolescence; Adolescents; Affective disorders; Chi-square test; Child development; Children; first episode mania; first episode psychosis; markers of vulnerability; Original; Patients; prodromes; Psychosis; Regression analysis; Risk factors; Social interactions; risk factors; first episode mania; first episode psychosis; markers of vulnerability; prodromes
• ISSN: 0001-690X; 1600-0447; 1600-0447
• DOI: 10.1111/acps.13415

Objective This study was aimed at identifying differences in the prodromal symptoms and their duration, risk factors and markers of vulnerability in patients presenting a first episode mania (FEM) or psychosis (FEP) with onset in late adolescence or adulthood in order to guide tailored treatment strategies. Methods Patients with a FEM or FEP underwent a clinical assessment. Prodromes were evaluated with the Bipolar Prodrome Symptom Scale‐Retrospective (BPSS‐R). Chi‐squared tests were conducted to assess specific prodromal symptoms, risk factors or markers of vulnerability between groups. Significant prodromal symptoms were entered in a stepwise forward logistic regression model. The probabilities of a gradual versus rapid onset pattern of the prodromes were computed with logistic regression models. Results The total sample included 108 patients (FEM = 72, FEP = 36). Social isolation was associated with the prodromal stage of a FEP whilst Increased energy or goal‐directed activity with the prodrome to a FEM. Physically slowed down presented the most gradual onset whilst Increased energy presented the most rapid. The presence of obstetric complications and difficulties in writing and reading during childhood were risk factors for FEP. As for markers of vulnerability, impairment in premorbid adjustment was characteristic of FEP patients. No specific risk factor or marker of vulnerability was identified for FEM. Conclusion Early characteristics differentiating FEP from FEM were identified. These findings might help shape early identification and preventive intervention programmes.