People at high risk for psychosis access primary care mental health services for depression and anxiety and are unlikely to recover from these affective symptoms. We report the first controlled trial of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for depression and anxiety, minimally adapted for psychosis risk, in primary care.

To evaluate feasibility, acceptability and signals of efficacy for CBT for depression and anxiety adapted for psychosis risk, designed in collaboration with people with psychosis.

A longitudinal controlled trial comparing best practice CBT for depression and anxiety (CBT-BP) with CBT adapted for psychosis risk (CBT-PR), in patients meeting criteria for UK primary care services and who are also clinically high risk for psychosis (trial registration no. ISRCTN40678).

Rates of recruitment (55 to CBT-BP, 44 to CBT-PR), completion of measures (90% CBT-BP, 94% CBT-PR) and retention in therapy (75% CBT-BP, 95% CBT-PR) demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of the adapted therapy. Routine measures of depression and anxiety signal improved clinical and recovery outcomes for CBT-PR. Psychosis and relational measures signal sustained improvement (at 3 months) in the CBT-PR group. No serious adverse events were reported.

Primary care mental health services present a unique opportunity to identify and treat people at risk of psychosis at a time when they are help-seeking. CBT for depression and anxiety, minimally adapted for psychosis risk, can be delivered in routine services, and is likely to improve clinical and recovery outcomes and reduce psychosis risk. A definitive trial is needed to estimate clinical and cost-effectiveness.

Previous studies identified clusters of first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients based on cognition and premorbid adjustment. This study examined a range of socio-environmental risk factors associated with clusters of FEP, aiming a) to compare clusters of FEP and community controls using the Maudsley Environmental Risk Score for psychosis (ERS), a weighted sum of the following risks: paternal age, childhood adversities, cannabis use, and ethnic minority membership; b) to explore the putative differences in specific environmental risk factors in distinguishing within patient clusters and from controls.

A univariable general linear model (GLS) compared the ERS between 1,263 community controls and clusters derived from 802 FEP patients, namely, low (n = 223) and high-cognitive-functioning (n = 205), intermediate (n = 224) and deteriorating (n = 150), from the EU-GEI study. A multivariable GLS compared clusters and controls by different exposures included in the ERS.

The ERS was higher in all clusters compared to controls, mostly in the deteriorating (β=2.8, 95% CI 2.3 3.4, η2 = 0.049) and the low-cognitive-functioning cluster (β=2.4, 95% CI 1.9 2.8, η2 = 0.049) and distinguished them from the cluster with high-cognitive-functioning. The deteriorating cluster had higher cannabis exposure (meandifference = 0.48, 95% CI 0.49 0.91) than the intermediate having identical IQ, and more people from an ethnic minority (meandifference = 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 1.29) compared to the high-cognitive-functioning cluster.

High exposure to environmental risk factors might result in cognitive impairment and lower-than-expected functioning in individuals at the onset of psychosis. Some patients’ trajectories involved risk factors that could be modified by tailored interventions.

The association between cannabis and psychosis is established, but the role of underlying genetics is unclear. We used data from the EU-GEI case-control study and UK Biobank to examine the independent and combined effect of heavy cannabis use and schizophrenia polygenic risk score (PRS) on risk for psychosis.

Genome-wide association study summary statistics from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium and the Genomic Psychiatry Cohort were used to calculate schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder (CUD) PRS for 1098 participants from the EU-GEI study and 143600 from the UK Biobank. Both datasets had information on cannabis use.

In both samples, schizophrenia PRS and cannabis use independently increased risk of psychosis. Schizophrenia PRS was not associated with patterns of cannabis use in the EU-GEI cases or controls or UK Biobank cases. It was associated with lifetime and daily cannabis use among UK Biobank participants without psychosis, but the effect was substantially reduced when CUD PRS was included in the model. In the EU-GEI sample, regular users of high-potency cannabis had the highest odds of being a case independently of schizophrenia PRS (OR daily use high-potency cannabis adjusted for PRS = 5.09, 95% CI 3.08–8.43, p = 3.21 × 10−10). We found no evidence of interaction between schizophrenia PRS and patterns of cannabis use.

Regular use of high-potency cannabis remains a strong predictor of psychotic disorder independently of schizophrenia PRS, which does not seem to be associated with heavy cannabis use. These are important findings at a time of increasing use and potency of cannabis worldwide.

Cannabis use and familial vulnerability to psychosis have been associated with social cognition deficits. This study examined the potential relationship between cannabis use and cognitive biases underlying social cognition and functioning in patients with first episode psychosis (FEP), their siblings, and controls.

We analyzed a sample of 543 participants with FEP, 203 siblings, and 1168 controls from the EU-GEI study using a correlational design. We used logistic regression analyses to examine the influence of clinical group, lifetime cannabis use frequency, and potency of cannabis use on cognitive biases, accounting for demographic and cognitive variables.

FEP patients showed increased odds of facial recognition processing (FRP) deficits (OR = 1.642, CI 1.123–2.402) relative to controls but not of speech illusions (SI) or jumping to conclusions (JTC) bias, with no statistically significant differences relative to siblings. Daily and occasional lifetime cannabis use were associated with decreased odds of SI (OR = 0.605, CI 0.368–0.997 and OR = 0.646, CI 0.457–0.913 respectively) and JTC bias (OR = 0.625, CI 0.422–0.925 and OR = 0.602, CI 0.460–0.787 respectively) compared with lifetime abstinence, but not with FRP deficits, in the whole sample. Within the cannabis user group, low-potency cannabis use was associated with increased odds of SI (OR = 1.829, CI 1.297–2.578, FRP deficits (OR = 1.393, CI 1.031–1.882, and JTC (OR = 1.661, CI 1.271–2.171) relative to high-potency cannabis use, with comparable effects in the three clinical groups.

Our findings suggest increased odds of cognitive biases in FEP patients who have never used cannabis and in low-potency users. Future studies should elucidate this association and its potential implications.

Childhood adversity and cannabis use are considered independent risk factors for psychosis, but whether different patterns of cannabis use may be acting as mediator between adversity and psychotic disorders has not yet been explored. The aim of this study is to examine whether cannabis use mediates the relationship between childhood adversity and psychosis.

Data were utilised on 881 first-episode psychosis patients and 1231 controls from the European network of national schizophrenia networks studying Gene–Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) study. Detailed history of cannabis use was collected with the Cannabis Experience Questionnaire. The Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse Questionnaire was used to assess exposure to household discord, sexual, physical or emotional abuse and bullying in two periods: early (0–11 years), and late (12–17 years). A path decomposition method was used to analyse whether the association between childhood adversity and psychosis was mediated by (1) lifetime cannabis use, (2) cannabis potency and (3) frequency of use.

The association between household discord and psychosis was partially mediated by lifetime use of cannabis (indirect effect coef. 0.078, s.e. 0.022, 17%), its potency (indirect effect coef. 0.059, s.e. 0.018, 14%) and by frequency (indirect effect coef. 0.117, s.e. 0.038, 29%). Similar findings were obtained when analyses were restricted to early exposure to household discord.

Harmful patterns of cannabis use mediated the association between specific childhood adversities, like household discord, with later psychosis. Children exposed to particularly challenging environments in their household could benefit from psychosocial interventions aimed at preventing cannabis misuse.

While cannabis use is a well-established risk factor for psychosis, little is known about any association between reasons for first using cannabis (RFUC) and later patterns of use and risk of psychosis.

We used data from 11 sites of the multicentre European Gene-Environment Interaction (EU-GEI) case–control study. 558 first-episode psychosis patients (FEPp) and 567 population controls who had used cannabis and reported their RFUC.

We ran logistic regressions to examine whether RFUC were associated with first-episode psychosis (FEP) case–control status. Path analysis then examined the relationship between RFUC, subsequent patterns of cannabis use, and case–control status.

Controls (86.1%) and FEPp (75.63%) were most likely to report ‘because of friends’ as their most common RFUC. However, 20.1% of FEPp compared to 5.8% of controls reported: ‘to feel better’ as their RFUC (χ2 = 50.97; p < 0.001). RFUC ‘to feel better’ was associated with being a FEPp (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.03–2.95) while RFUC ‘with friends’ was associated with being a control (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37–0.83). The path model indicated an association between RFUC ‘to feel better’ with heavy cannabis use and with FEPp-control status.

Both FEPp and controls usually started using cannabis with their friends, but more patients than controls had begun to use ‘to feel better’. People who reported their reason for first using cannabis to ‘feel better’ were more likely to progress to heavy use and develop a psychotic disorder than those reporting ‘because of friends’.

Child maltreatment (CM) and migrant status are independently associated with psychosis. We examined prevalence of CM by migrant status and tested whether migrant status moderated the association between CM and first-episode psychosis (FEP). We further explored whether differences in CM exposure contributed to variations in the incidence rates of FEP by migrant status.

We included FEP patients aged 18–64 years in 14 European sites and recruited controls representative of the local populations. Migrant status was operationalized according to generation (first/further) and region of origin (Western/non-Western countries). The reference population was composed by individuals of host country's ethnicity. CM was assessed with Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Prevalence ratios of CM were estimated using Poisson regression. We examined the moderation effect of migrant status on the odds of FEP by CM fitting adjusted logistic regressions with interaction terms. Finally, we calculated the population attributable fractions (PAFs) for CM by migrant status.

We examined 849 FEP cases and 1142 controls. CM prevalence was higher among migrants, their descendants and migrants of non-Western heritage. Migrant status, classified by generation (likelihood test ratio:χ2 = 11.3, p = 0.004) or by region of origin (likelihood test ratio:χ2 = 11.4, p = 0.003), attenuated the association between CM and FEP. PAFs for CM were higher among all migrant groups compared with the reference populations.

The higher exposure to CM, despite a smaller effect on the odds of FEP, accounted for a greater proportion of incident FEP cases among migrants. Policies aimed at reducing CM should consider the increased vulnerability of specific subpopulations.

Gene x environment (G×E) interactions, i.e. genetic modulation of the sensitivity to environmental factors and/or environmental control of the gene expression, have not been reliably established regarding aetiology of psychotic disorders. Moreover, recent studies have shown associations between the polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia (PRS-SZ) and some risk factors of psychotic disorders, challenging the traditional gene v. environment dichotomy. In the present article, we studied the role of GxE interaction between psychosocial stressors (childhood trauma, stressful life-events, self-reported discrimination experiences and low social capital) and the PRS-SZ on subclinical psychosis in a population-based sample.

Data were drawn from the EUropean network of national schizophrenia networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) study, in which subjects without psychotic disorders were included in six countries. The sample was restricted to European descendant subjects (n = 706). Subclinical dimensions of psychosis (positive, negative, and depressive) were measured by the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE) scale. Associations between the PRS-SZ and the psychosocial stressors were tested. For each dimension, the interactions between genes and environment were assessed using linear models and comparing explained variances of ‘Genetic’ models (solely fitted with PRS-SZ), ‘Environmental’ models (solely fitted with each environmental stressor), ‘Independent’ models (with PRS-SZ and each environmental factor), and ‘Interaction’ models (Independent models plus an interaction term between the PRS-SZ and each environmental factor). Likelihood ration tests (LRT) compared the fit of the different models.

There were no genes-environment associations. PRS-SZ was associated with positive dimensions (β = 0.092, R2 = 7.50%), and most psychosocial stressors were associated with all three subclinical psychotic dimensions (except social capital and positive dimension). Concerning the positive dimension, Independent models fitted better than Environmental and Genetic models. No significant GxE interaction was observed for any dimension.

This study in subjects without psychotic disorders suggests that (i) the aetiological continuum hypothesis could concern particularly the positive dimension of subclinical psychosis, (ii) genetic and environmental factors have independent effects on the level of this positive dimension, (iii) and that interactions between genetic and individual environmental factors could not be identified in this sample.

Deficits in visuospatial attention, known as neglect, are common following brain injury, but underdiagnosed and poorly treated, resulting in long-term cognitive disability. In clinical settings, neglect is often assessed using simple pen-and-paper tests. While convenient, these cannot characterise the full spectrum of neglect. This protocol reports a research programme that compares traditional neglect assessments with a novel virtual reality attention assessment platform: The Attention Atlas (AA).

The AA was codesigned by researchers and clinicians to meet the clinical need for improved neglect assessment. The AA uses a visual search paradigm to map the attended space in three dimensions and seeks to identify the optimal parameters that best distinguish neglect from non-neglect, and the spectrum of neglect, by providing near-time feedback to clinicians on system-level behavioural performance. A series of experiments will address procedural, scientific, patient, and clinical feasibility domains.

Analyses focuses on descriptive measures of reaction time, accuracy data for target localisation, and histogram-based raycast attentional mapping analysis; which measures the individual’s orientation in space, and inter- and intra-individual variation of visuospatial attention. We will compare neglect and control data using parametric between-subjects analyses. We present example individual-level results produced in near-time during visual search.

The development and validation of the AA is part of a new generation of translational neuroscience that exploits the latest advances in technology and brain science, including technology repurposed from the consumer gaming market. This approach to rehabilitation has the potential for highly accurate, highly engaging, personalised care.