Early detection and prevention of psychosis has become an international priority. Much of this work has focused on youth presenting with attenuated symptoms of psychosis—those at Clinical High Risk for psychosis (CHR)—given their elevated probability of developing the full disorder in subsequent years. Individuals at CHR may be prone to exacerbated psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic and its subsequent physical isolation measures, due to heightened stress sensitivity and comorbid mental health problems. Telepsychotherapy holds promise for reaching this population, especially during the current COVID-19 outbreak. However, there are limited evidence-based guidelines or interventions for use of telepsychotherapy with this population. In this paper, we review common clinical issues for individuals at CHR and how they might be exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic; best practices for treatment and adaptations for telepsychotherapy for individuals at CHR; and highlight real clinical issues that we are currently experiencing in a United States-based specialized CHR clinic as we conduct telepsychotherapy via videoconferencing. We conclude with questions for those in the field to contemplate, as well as potential challenges and benefits in using telepsychotherapy with individuals at CHR and their families.

Despite rapidly growing knowledge of the clinical high-risk (CHR) state for psychosis, the vast majority of case-control studies have relied on healthy volunteers as a reference point for drawing inferences about the CHR construct. Researchers have long recognized that results generated from this design are limited by significant interpretive concerns, yet little attention has been given to how these concerns affect the growing field of CHR research. We argue that overreliance on healthy control participants in CHR research threatens the validity of inferences concerning group differences, hinders advances in understanding the development of psychosis, and limits clinical progress. We suggest that the combined use of healthy and help-seeking (i.e., psychiatric) controls is a necessary step for the next generation of CHR research. We then evaluate methods for help-seeking control studies, identify the available CHR studies that have used such designs, discuss select findings in this literature, and offer recommendations for research.

Youth at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis present with neuropsychological impairments relative to healthy controls (HC), but whether these impairments are distinguishable from those seen among putatively lower risk peers with other psychopathology remains unknown. We hypothesized that any excess impairment among CHR cohorts beyond that seen in other clinical groups is minimal and accounted for by the proportion who transition to psychosis (CHR-T). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing cognitive performance among CHR youth to clinical comparators (CC) who either sought mental health services but did not meet CHR criteria or presented with verified nonpsychotic psychopathology. Twenty-one studies were included representing nearly 4000 participants. Individuals at CHR showed substantial cognitive impairments relative to HC (eg, global cognition: g = −0.48 [−0.60, −0.34]), but minimal impairments relative to CC (eg, global cognition: g = −0.13 [−0.20, −0.06]). Any excess impairment among CHR was almost entirely attributable to CHR-T; impairment among youth at CHR without transition (CHR-NT) was typically indistinguishable from CC (eg, global cognition, CHR-T: g = −0.42 [−0.64, −0.19], CHR-NT: g = −0.09 [−0.18, 0.00]; processing speed, CHR-T: g = −0.59 [−0.82, −0.37], CHR-NT: g = −0.12 [−0.25, 0.07]; working memory, CHR-T: g = −0.42 [−0.62, −0.22], CHR-NT: g = −0.03 [−0.14, 0.08]). Neurocognitive impairment in CHR cohorts should be interpreted cautiously when psychosis or even CHR status is the specific clinical syndrome of interest as these impairments most likely represent a transdiagnostic vs psychosis-specific vulnerability.