ArticleHuman psychopharmacology2025
Baseline Exposure to Antipsychotic Medication in Young People at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis: A 2-Year Italian Follow-Up Study.
Article in Human psychopharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exposure to Antipsychotics in Youths at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis: Low VS High Doses and Their Relevance for Clinical Outcomes.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Psychiatric Antecedents in Adolescents at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis: Insights from the "Parma At-Risk Mental States" Follow-up Program.Research on child and adolescent psychopathology · 2025Article
- Targeting Psychotic and Cognitive Dimensions in Clinical High Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P): A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDespite various models examining baseline factors, predicting outcomes in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) remains challenging. Specifically, neglecting factors like ongoing antipsychotic (AP) medications introduce bias and reduce method precision. The main aim of this research was to determine if the presence of AP prescription at baseline identifies a CHR-P subgroup with worse prognostic outcomes over a 2-year period.
methodsA group of 180 FEP individuals (92 CHR-P/AP+, 88 CHR-P/AP-) were evaluated at baseline and after 24 months using the PANSS and GAF scales. Individuals with baseline AP prescription were included in the CHR-P/AP+ subgroup; those not taking APs were grouped as CHR-P/AP-. Univariate Cox regression analysis and mixed-design ANOVA were performed.
resultsAfter 2 years, CHR-P/AP+ had a higher rate of new hospitalization but lower rate of service disengagement. No significant inter-group difference in psychosis transition rate was found. A "time-×-group" interaction effect on longitudinal improvement in PANSS total score was observed in CHR-P/AP+ subjects.
conclusionsIt is advisable to conduct a more extensive outcome evaluation beyond the psychometric criteria for CHR-P and the mere consideration of psychosis transition. Such an approach would facilitate the identification of specific CHR-P subgroups with divergent prognoses and different AP response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.