Primary studies related to this topic

loading
4 References (4 articles) loading Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Comparison of early intervention services vs treatment as usual for early-phase psychosis: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

blocked
Journal JAMA psychiatry
Year 2018
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 41 Primary studies 10 Primary studies (41 references)

Loading references information
Importance: The value of early intervention in psychosis and allocation of public resources has long been debated because outcomes in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders have remained suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: To compare early intervention services (EIS) with treatment as usual (TAU) for early-phase psychosis. DATA SOURCES: Systematic literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov without language restrictions through June 6, 2017. Study selection: Randomized trials comparing EIS vs TAU in first-episode psychosis or early-phase schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Data extraction and synthesis: This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Three independent investigators extracted data for a random-effects meta-analysis and prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Main outcomes and measures: The coprimary outcomes were all-cause treatment discontinuation and at least 1 psychiatric hospitalization during the treatment period. RESULTS: Across 10 randomized clinical trials (mean [SD] trial duration, 16.2 [7.4] months; range, 9-24 months) among 2176 patients (mean [SD] age, 27.5 [4.6] years; 1355 [62.3%] male), EIS was associated with better outcomes than TAU at the end of treatment for all 13 meta-analyzable outcomes. These outcomes included the following: all-cause treatment discontinuation (risk ratio [RR], 0.70; 95%CI, 0.61-0.80; <i>P</i> &lt; .001), at least 1 psychiatric hospitalization (RR, 0.74; 95%CI, 0.61-0.90; <i>P</i> = .003), involvement in school or work (RR, 1.13; 95%CI, 1.03-1.24; <i>P</i> = .01), total symptom severity (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.32; 95%CI, −0.47 to −0.17; <i>P</i> &lt; .001), positive symptom severity (SMD, −0.22; 95%CI, −0.32 to −0.11; <i>P</i> &lt; .001), and negative symptom severity (SMD, −0.28; 95%CI, −0.42 to −0.14;<i> P</i> &lt; .001). Superiority of EIS regarding all outcomes was evident at 6, 9 to 12, and 18 to 24 months of treatment (except for general symptom severity and depressive symptom severity at 18-24 months). Conclusions and relevance: In early-phase psychosis, EIS are superior to TAU across all meta-analyzable outcomes. These results support the need for funding and use of EIS in patients with early-phase psychosis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)

Systematic review

Unclassified

Intensive case management for severe mental illness

blocked
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2017
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 3 Broad syntheses 96 Broad syntheses (3 references)

This article includes 107 Primary studies 96 Primary studies (107 references)

Loading references information
Background: Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community-based package of care aiming to provide long-term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. Intensive Case Management evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (fewer than 20) and high-intensity input. Objectives: To assess the effects of ICM as a means of caring for severely mentally ill people in the community in comparison with non-ICM (caseload greater than 20) and with standard community care. We did not distinguish between models of ICM. In addition, to assess whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation (mean number of days per month in hospital) is influenced by the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and by the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted (baseline level of hospital use). Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last update search 10 April 2015). Selection criteria: All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community care setting, where ICM is compared to non-ICM or standard care. Data collection and analysis: At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect. We assessed overall quality for clinically important outcomes using the GRADE approach and investigated possible risk of bias within included trials. Main results: The 2016 update included two more studies (n = 196) and more publications with additional data for four already included studies. The updated review therefore includes 7524 participants from 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We found data relevant to two comparisons: ICM versus standard care, and ICM versus non-ICM. The majority of studies had a high risk of selective reporting. No studies provided data for relapse or important improvement in mental state. 1. ICM versus standard care When ICM was compared with standard care for the outcome service use, ICM slightly reduced the number of days in hospital per month (n = 3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.34,low-quality evidence). Similarly, for the outcome global state, ICM reduced the number of people leaving the trial early (n = 1798, 13 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79, low-quality evidence). For the outcome adverse events, the evidence showed that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.51, low-quality evidence). In addition, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment due to very low-quality evidence (n = 1129, 4 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.0, very low-quality evidence). 2. ICM versus non-ICM When ICM was compared with non-ICM for the outcome service use, there was moderate-quality evidence that ICM probably makes little or no difference in the average number of days in hospital per month (n = 2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21, moderate-quality evidence) or in the average number of admissions (n = 678, 1 RCT, MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.05, moderate-quality evidence) compared to non-ICM. Similarly, the results showed that ICM may reduce the number of participants leaving the intervention early (n = 1970, 7 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95,low-quality evidence) and that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1152, 3 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.84, low-quality evidence). Finally, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment as compared to non-ICM (n = 73, 1 RCT, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.74, very low-quality evidence). 3. Fidelity to ACT Within the meta-regression we found that i.) the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii.) the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but the 'baseline hospital use' result still significantly influences time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07, P = 0.0027). Authors' conclusions: Based on very low- to moderate-quality evidence, ICM is effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illness. Compared to standard care, ICM may reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. Intensive Case Management is at least valuable to people with severe mental illnesses in the subgroup of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about four days per month in past two years). Intensive Case Management models with high fidelity to the original team organisation of ACT model were more effective at reducing time in hospital. However, it is unclear what overall gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach. We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, however we currently know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care, and this should be undertaken. © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Programmes pour premiers épisodes psychotiques: Une revue systématique de la littérature.

Authors Skalli L , Nicole L
Journal L'Encéphale
Year 2011
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 15 Primary studies 5 Primary studies (15 references)

Loading references information
The objectives of this review are to describe different specialized first-episode psychosis services (FEP) and report their results at different times of follow-up in order to determine what specific approaches they should include, the optimal duration of treatment, and the characteristics of the patients who benefit the most from such programs. We systematically reviewed psycINFO and MEDLINE in search of studies dealing with efficacy or efficiency of specialized FEP programs. We only included research that had at least one comparison group and excluded those dealing with primary prevention of psychosis or prodromal interventions. Result demonstrates that five, all Scandinavian, programs and their results at different follow-up times are presented. The Parachute project started in 1994 in Sweden with the objectives to use low dosages of antipsychotics (AP), to minimize hospitalizations, to offer specialized individual and familial psychotherapy, and to assure continuity of care during a five-year period. The programs specialized in the treatment of FEP show encouraging results mainly during their active phase.. This review suggests that a two-year treatment period is not long enough to enable patients to maintain the improvements obtained during the active phase of an integrated treatment. Future studies should aim to determine —the characteristics of the patients that most benefit from—the specific interventions that should be included in and— the ideal duration of treatment of the comprehensive FEP programs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Systematic review

Unclassified

Early intervention for psychosis

blocked
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2011
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 5 Broad syntheses 19 Broad syntheses (5 references)

This article includes 96 Primary studies 19 Primary studies (96 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Proponents of early intervention have argued that outcomes might be improved if more therapeutic efforts were focused on the early stages of schizophrenia or on people with prodromal symptoms. Early intervention in schizophrenia has two elements that are distinct from standard care: early detection, and phase-specific treatment (phase-specific treatment is a psychological, social or physical treatment developed, or modified, specifically for use with people at an early stage of the illness). Early detection and phase-specific treatment may both be offered as supplements to standard care, or may be provided through a specialised early intervention team. Early intervention is now well established as a therapeutic approach in America, Europe and Australasia. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of: (a) early detection; (b) phase-specific treatments; and (c) specialised early intervention teams in the treatment of people with prodromal symptoms or first-episode psychosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2009), inspected reference lists of all identified trials and reviews and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to prevent progression to psychosis in people showing prodromal symptoms, or to improve outcome for people with first-episode psychosis. Eligible interventions, alone and in combination, included: early detection, phase-specific treatments, and care from specialised early intervention teams. We accepted cluster-randomised trials but excluded non-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably selected studies, quality rated them and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated relative risks (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H) and used intention-to-treat analysis (ITT). MAIN RESULTS: Studies were diverse, mostly small, undertaken by pioneering researchers and with many methodological limitations (18 RCTs, total n=1808). Mostly, meta-analyses were inappropriate. For the six studies addressing prevention of psychosis for people with prodromal symptoms, olanzapine seemed of little benefit (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.58 CI 0.3 to 1.2), and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) equally so (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.50 CI 0.2 to 1.7). A risperidone plus CBT plus specialised team did have benefit over specialist team alone at six months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 2 to 20), but this was not seen by 12 months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR 0.54 CI 0.2 to 1.3). Omega 3 fatty acids (EPA) had advantage over placebo (n=76, 1 RCT, RR transition to psychosis 0.13 CI 0.02 to 1.0, NNT 6 CI 5 to 96). We know of no replications of this finding. The remaining trials aimed to improve outcome in first-episode psychosis. Phase-specific CBT for suicidality seemed to have little effect, but the single study was small (n=56, 1 RCT, RR suicide 0.81 CI 0.05 to 12.26). Family therapy plus a specialised team in the Netherlands did not clearly affect relapse (n=76, RR 1.05 CI 0.4 to 3.0), but without the specialised team in China it may (n=83, 1 RCT, RR admitted to hospital 0.28 CI 0.1 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6). The largest and highest quality study compared specialised team with standard care. Leaving the study early was reduced (n=547, 1 RCT, RR 0.59 CI 0.4 to 0.8, NNT 9 CI 6 to 18) and compliance with treatment improved (n=507, RR stopped treatment 0.20 CI 0.1 to 0.4, NNT 9 CI 8 to 12). The mean number of days spent in hospital at one year were not significantly different (n=507, WMD, -1.39 CI -2.8 to 0.1), neither were data for 'Not hospitalised' by five years (n=547, RR 1.05 CI 0.90 to 1.2). There were no significant differences in numbers 'not living independently' by one year (n=507, RR 0.55 CI 0.3 to 1.2). At five years significantly fewer participants in the treatment group were 'not living independently' (n=547, RR 0.42 CI 0.21 to 0.8, NNT 19 CI 14 to 62). When phase-specific treatment (CBT) was compared with befriending no significant differences emerged in the number of participants being hospitalised over the 12 months (n=62, 1 RCT, RR 1.08 CI 0.59 to 1.99). Phase-specific treatment E-EPA oils suggested no benefit (n=80, 1 RCT, RR no response 0.90 CI 0.6 to 1.4) as did phase-specific treatment brief intervention (n=106, 1 RCT, RR admission 0.86 CI 0.4 to 1.7). Phase-specific ACE found no benefit but participants given vocational intervention were more likely to be employed (n=41, 1 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.21 to 0.7, NNT 2 CI 2 to 4). Phase-specific cannabis and psychosis therapy did not show benefit (n=47, RR cannabis use 1.30 CI 0.8 to 2.2) and crisis assessment did not reduce hospitalisation (n=98, RR 0.85 CI 0.6 to 1.3). Weight was unaffected by early behavioural intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is emerging, but as yet inconclusive evidence, to suggest&#160;that people in the prodrome of psychosis can be helped by some&#160;interventions. There is some support for specialised early&#160;intervention services, but further trials would be desirable, and&#160;there is a question of whether gains are maintained. There is some&#160;support for phase-specific treatment focused on employment and&#160;family therapy, but again, this needs replicating with larger and longer trials.