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.

Cannabis use severely affects the outcome of people with psychotic disorders, yet there is a lack of treatments. To address this, in 2019 the National Health Service (NHS) Cannabis Clinic for Psychosis (CCP) was developed to support adults suffering from psychosis to reduce and/or stop their cannabis use.

Examine outcome data from the first 46 individuals to complete the CCP's intervention.

The sample (N = 46) consisted of adults (aged ≥ 18) with psychosis under the care of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, referred to the CCP between January 2020 and February 2023, who completed their intervention by September 2023. Clinical and functional measures were collected before (T0) and after (T1) the CCP intervention (one-to-one sessions and peer group attendance). Primary outcomes were changes in the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test-Revised (CUDIT-R) score and pattern of cannabis use. Secondary outcomes included T0–T1 changes in measures of delusions, paranoia, depression, anxiety and functioning.

A reduction in the mean CUDIT-R score was observed between T0 (mean difference = 17.10, 95% CI = 15.54–18.67) and T1, with 73.91% of participants achieving abstinence and 26.09% reducing the frequency and potency of their use. Significant improvements in all clinical and functional outcomes were observed, with 90.70% being in work or education at T1 compared with 8.70% at T0. The variance in CUDIT-R scores explained between 34 and 64% of the variance in our secondary measures.

The CCP intervention is a feasible strategy to support cannabis use cessation/reduction and improve clinical and functional outcomes of people with psychotic disorders.

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.

A clinical tool to estimate the risk of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) in people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) would inform early detection of TRS and overcome the delay of up to 5 years in starting TRS medication.

To develop and evaluate a model that could predict the risk of TRS in routine clinical practice.

We used data from two UK-based FEP cohorts (GAP and AESOP-10) to develop and internally validate a prognostic model that supports identification of patients at high-risk of TRS soon after FEP diagnosis. Using sociodemographic and clinical predictors, a model for predicting risk of TRS was developed based on penalised logistic regression, with missing data handled using multiple imputation. Internal validation was undertaken via bootstrapping, obtaining optimism-adjusted estimates of the model's performance. Interviews and focus groups with clinicians were conducted to establish clinically relevant risk thresholds and understand the acceptability and perceived utility of the model.

We included seven factors in the prediction model that are predominantly assessed in clinical practice in patients with FEP. The model predicted treatment resistance among the 1081 patients with reasonable accuracy; the model's C-statistic was 0.727 (95% CI 0.723–0.732) prior to shrinkage and 0.687 after adjustment for optimism. Calibration was good (expected/observed ratio: 0.999; calibration-in-the-large: 0.000584) after adjustment for optimism.

We developed and internally validated a prediction model with reasonably good predictive metrics. Clinicians, patients and carers were involved in the development process. External validation of the tool is needed followed by co-design methodology to support implementation in early intervention services.

Incidence of first-episode psychosis (FEP) varies substantially across geographic regions. Phenotypes of subclinical psychosis (SP), such as psychotic-like experiences (PLEs) and schizotypy, present several similarities with psychosis. We aimed to examine whether SP measures varied across different sites and whether this variation was comparable with FEP incidence within the same areas. We further examined contribution of environmental and genetic factors to SP.

We used data from 1497 controls recruited in 16 different sites across 6 countries. Factor scores for several psychopathological dimensions of schizotypy and PLEs were obtained using multidimensional item response theory models. Variation of these scores was assessed using multi-level regression analysis to estimate individual and between-sites variance adjusting for age, sex, education, migrant, employment and relational status, childhood adversity, and cannabis use. In the final model we added local FEP incidence as a second-level variable. Association with genetic liability was examined separately.

Schizotypy showed a large between-sites variation with up to 15% of variance attributable to site-level characteristics. Adding local FEP incidence to the model considerably reduced the between-sites unexplained schizotypy variance. PLEs did not show as much variation. Overall, SP was associated with younger age, migrant, unmarried, unemployed and less educated individuals, cannabis use, and childhood adversity. Both phenotypes were associated with genetic liability to schizophrenia.

Schizotypy showed substantial between-sites variation, being more represented in areas where FEP incidence is higher. This supports the hypothesis that shared contextual factors shape the between-sites variation of psychosis across the spectrum.

Psychosis rates are higher among some migrant groups. We hypothesized that psychosis in migrants is associated with cumulative social disadvantage during different phases of migration.

We used data from the EUropean Network of National Schizophrenia Networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) case-control study. We defined a set of 3 indicators of social disadvantage for each phase: pre-migration, migration, and post-migration.

249 cases and 219 controls were assessed. Pre-migration (OR 1.61, 95%CI 1.06-2.44, p=0.027) and postmigration social disadvantages (OR 1.89, 95%CI 1.02-3.51, p=0.044), along with expectations/achievements mismatch (OR 1.14, 95%CI 1.03-1.26, p=0.014) were all significantly associated with psychosis. We found a dose-response effect between number of adversities across all phases and odds of psychosis (≥6: OR 14.09, 95%CI 2.06-96-47, p=0.007).

The cumulative effect of social disadvantages before, during and after migration was associated with increased odds of psychosis in migrants, independently of ethnicity or length of stay in the country of arrival. Public health initiatives that address the social disadvantages that many migrants face during the whole migration process and post-migration psychological support may be reduce the excess of psychosis in migrants.

None Declared

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’.

Cannabis use has been linked to psychotic disorders but this association has been primarily observed in the Global North. This study investigates patterns of cannabis use and associations with psychoses in three Global South (regions within Latin America, Asia, Africa and Oceania) settings.

Case–control study within the International Programme of Research on Psychotic Disorders (INTREPID) II conducted between May 2018 and September 2020. In each setting, we recruited over 200 individuals with an untreated psychosis and individually-matched controls (Kancheepuram India; Ibadan, Nigeria; northern Trinidad). Controls, with no past or current psychotic disorder, were individually-matched to cases by 5-year age group, sex and neighbourhood. Presence of psychotic disorder assessed using the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry and cannabis exposure measured by the World Health Organisation Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST).

Cases reported higher lifetime and frequent cannabis use than controls in each setting. In Trinidad, cannabis use was associated with increased odds of psychotic disorder: lifetime cannabis use (adj. OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.99–2.53); frequent cannabis use (adj. OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.10–3.60); cannabis dependency (as measured by high ASSIST score) (adj. OR 4.70, 95% CI 1.77–12.47), early age of first use (adj. OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.03–3.27). Cannabis use in the other two settings was too rare to examine associations.

In line with previous studies, we found associations between cannabis use and the occurrence and age of onset of psychoses in Trinidad. These findings have implications for strategies for prevention of psychosis.

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.

Schizophrenia (SZ), bipolar disorder (BD) and depression (D) run in families. This susceptibility is partly due to hundreds or thousands of common genetic variants, each conferring a fractional risk. The cumulative effects of the associated variants can be summarised as a polygenic risk score (PRS). Using data from the EUropean Network of national schizophrenia networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) first episode case–control study, we aimed to test whether PRSs for three major psychiatric disorders (SZ, BD, D) and for intelligent quotient (IQ) as a neurodevelopmental proxy, can discriminate affective psychosis (AP) from schizophrenia-spectrum disorder (SSD).

Participants (842 cases, 1284 controls) from 16 European EU-GEI sites were successfully genotyped following standard quality control procedures. The sample was stratified based on genomic ancestry and analyses were done only on the subsample representing the European population (573 cases, 1005 controls). Using PRS for SZ, BD, D, and IQ built from the latest available summary statistics, we performed simple or multinomial logistic regression models adjusted for 10 principal components for the different clinical comparisons.

In case–control comparisons PRS-SZ, PRS-BD and PRS-D distributed differentially across psychotic subcategories. In case–case comparisons, both PRS-SZ [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–0.92] and PRS-D (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.06–1.61) differentiated AP from SSD; and within AP categories, only PRS-SZ differentiated BD from psychotic depression (OR = 2.14, 95% CI 1.23–3.74).

Combining PRS for severe psychiatric disorders in prediction models for psychosis phenotypes can increase discriminative ability and improve our understanding of these phenotypes. Our results point towards the potential usefulness of PRSs in specific populations such as high-risk or early psychosis phases.

A history of childhood adversity is associated with psychotic disorder, with an increase in risk according to the number of exposures. However, it is not known why only some exposed individuals go on to develop psychosis. One possibility is pre-existing polygenic vulnerability. Here, we investigated, in the largest sample of first-episode psychosis (FEP) cases to date, whether childhood adversity and high polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia (SZ-PRS) combine synergistically to increase the risk of psychosis, over and above the effect of each alone.

We assigned a schizophrenia-polygenic risk score (SZ-PRS), calculated from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC2), to all participants in a sample of 384 FEP patients and 690 controls from the case–control component of the EU-GEI study. Only participants of European ancestry were included in the study. A history of childhood adversity was collected using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ). Synergistic effects were estimated using the interaction contrast ratio (ICR) [odds ratio (OR)exposure and PRS − ORexposure − ORPRS + 1] with adjustment for potential confounders.

There was some evidence that the combined effect of childhood adversities and polygenic risk was greater than the sum of each alone, as indicated by an ICR greater than zero [i.e. ICR 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.29 to 3.85]. Examining subtypes of childhood adversities, the strongest synergetic effect was observed for physical abuse (ICR 6.25, 95% CI −6.25 to 20.88).

Our findings suggest possible synergistic effects of genetic liability and childhood adversity experiences in the onset of FEP, but larger samples are needed to increase precision of estimates.

Cannabis consumption is a modifiable risk factor associated with psychosis, but not all cannabis users develop psychosis. Animal studies suggest that an antecedent active immune system interacts with subsequent cannabis exposure and moderates the cannabis–psychosis association, supporting the two-hit hypothesis. The clinical investigations are few, and it is unclear if the immune system is a biological candidate moderating the cannabis–psychosis association or whether cannabis increases inflammation, which in turn, augments psychosis likelihood.

We explored the mediating and moderating role of blood inflammation using PROCESS macro. We used data from a cross-sectional study, including 153 first-episode psychosis patients and 256 community-based controls. Participants answered the Cannabis Experience Questionnaire (cannabis frequency, age of onset, and duration), and plasma cytokines were measured [interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-4, IL-10, tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interferon-γ (IFN-γ), transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β); multiplex]. We computed an inflammatory composite score (ICS) to represent the systemic inflammatory state. Confounders included sex, age, ethnicity, educational level, body mass index, tobacco smoking, lifetime use of other drugs, and antipsychotic treatment.

Mediation: Cannabis consumption was not associated with increased inflammation, thus not supporting a mediating effect of inflammation. Moderation: Daily use and age of onset <17 interacted significantly with the ICS to increase the odds of psychosis beyond their individual effects and were only associated with psychosis among those scoring medium–high in the ICS.

Immune dysregulation might be part of the pathophysiology of psychosis, not explained by cannabis use or other confounders. We provide the first and initial evidence that immune dysregulation modifies the cannabis–psychosis association, in line with a two-hit hypothesis.

Perceived discrimination is associated with worse mental health. Few studies have assessed whether perceived discrimination (i) is associated with the risk of psychotic disorders and (ii) contributes to an increased risk among minority ethnic groups relative to the ethnic majority.

We used data from the European Network of National Schizophrenia Networks Studying Gene-Environment Interactions Work Package 2, a population-based case−control study of incident psychotic disorders in 17 catchment sites across six countries. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the associations between perceived discrimination and psychosis using mixed-effects logistic regression models. We used stratified and mediation analyses to explore differences for minority ethnic groups.

Reporting any perceived experience of major discrimination (e.g. unfair treatment by police, not getting hired) was higher in cases than controls (41.8% v. 34.2%). Pervasive experiences of discrimination (≥3 types) were also higher in cases than controls (11.3% v. 5.5%). In fully adjusted models, the odds of psychosis were 1.20 (95% CI 0.91–1.59) for any discrimination and 1.79 (95% CI 1.19–1.59) for pervasive discrimination compared with no discrimination. In stratified analyses, the magnitude of association for pervasive experiences of discrimination appeared stronger for minority ethnic groups (OR = 1.73, 95% CI 1.12–2.68) than the ethnic majority (OR = 1.42, 95% CI 0.65–3.10). In exploratory mediation analysis, pervasive discrimination minimally explained excess risk among minority ethnic groups (5.1%).

Pervasive experiences of discrimination are associated with slightly increased odds of psychotic disorders and may minimally help explain excess risk for minority ethnic groups.

Psychosis rates are higher among some migrant groups. We hypothesized that psychosis in migrants is associated with cumulative social disadvantage during different phases of migration.

We used data from the EUropean Network of National Schizophrenia Networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) case–control study. We defined a set of three indicators of social disadvantage for each phase: pre-migration, migration and post-migration. We examined whether social disadvantage in the pre- and post-migration phases, migration adversities, and mismatch between achievements and expectations differed between first-generation migrants with first-episode psychosis and healthy first-generation migrants, and tested whether this accounted for differences in odds of psychosis in multivariable logistic regression models.

In total, 249 cases and 219 controls were assessed. Pre-migration (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.06–2.44, p = 0.027) and post-migration social disadvantages (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.02–3.51, p = 0.044), along with expectations/achievements mismatch (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03–1.26, p = 0.014) were all significantly associated with psychosis. Migration adversities (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.672–2.06, p = 0.568) were not significantly related to the outcome. Finally, we found a dose–response effect between the number of adversities across all phases and odds of psychosis (⩾6: OR 14.09, 95% CI 2.06–96.47, p = 0.007).

The cumulative effect of social disadvantages before, during and after migration was associated with increased odds of psychosis in migrants, independently of ethnicity or length of stay in the country of arrival. Public health initiatives that address the social disadvantages that many migrants face during the whole migration process and post-migration psychological support may reduce the excess of psychosis in migrants.

A growing body of research suggests that childhood adversities are associated with later psychosis, broadly defined. However, there remain several gaps and unanswered questions. Most studies are of low-level psychotic experiences and findings cannot necessarily be extrapolated to psychotic disorders. Further, few studies have examined the effects of more fine-grained dimensions of adversity such as type, timing and severity.

Using detailed data from the Childhood Adversity and Psychosis (CAPsy) study, we sought to address these gaps and examine in detail associations between a range of childhood adversities and psychotic disorder.

CAPsy is population-based first-episode psychosis case–control study in the UK. In a sample of 374 cases and 301 controls, we collected extensive data on childhood adversities, in particular household discord, various forms of abuse and bullying, and putative confounders, including family history of psychotic disorder, using validated, semi-structured instruments.

We found strong evidence that all forms of childhood adversity were associated with around a two- to fourfold increased odds of psychotic disorder and that exposure to multiple adversities was associated with a linear increase in odds. We further found that severe forms of adversity, i.e. involving threat, hostility and violence, were most strongly associated with increased odds of disorder. More tentatively, we found that some adversities (e.g. bullying, sexual abuse) were more strongly associated with psychotic disorder if first occurrence was in adolescence.

Our findings extend previous research on childhood adversity and suggest a degree of specificity for severe adversities involving threat, hostility and violence.