[Skip to Navigation]
Comment & Response
June 2017

Negative Psychosis Prevention Trials—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1Orygen, National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Parkville, Australia
  • 2Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
  • 3Department of Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(6):652-653. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0184

In Reply We appreciate the thoughtful responses to our study.1 While the larger ultrahigh-risk (UHR) trials mentioned by Fusar-Poli failed to show an advantage for the experimental condition, and their capacity to test this was probably affected by the question of power, the latter issue can be viewed as secondary to the low transition rate in the control group. While it is possible that this was due to a failure of sufficient enrichment, an alternative explanation is that both intervention groups were potent in reducing the transition rate. We know from meta-analyses that intervention reduces the risk for transition by 50%.

Add or change institution