PURPOSE: The objectives of this review were to understand the prevalence of cannabis use and how cannabis is associated with transition to psychosis, symptoms, cognition, trauma and family history in clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis individuals.
METHOD: A systematic literature review was conducted to find studies that examined cannabis use in CHR individuals, with no limitations on the geographical area, and included publications up to November 2018. Studies were screened for inclusion based on detailed criteria, and data were extracted on cannabis use and associated outcomes. A quantitative synthesis by meta-analysis was performed where appropriate, otherwise, a qualitative synthesis was conducted.
RESULTS: Overall, 36 studies met inclusion criteria with an average age of 20.1 years and 58.4% males. Prevalence of lifetime cannabis use was 48.7%, whereas current cannabis use was 25.8% and the prevalence of cannabis use disorder/abuse or dependence was 14.9% across the studies. All cannabis use results had statistically significant heterogeneity ranging from 75.7 to 92.8%. The most commonly reported association with cannabis use was transition to psychosis, although the pooled relative risk (RR) was not statistically significant (RR = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 0.89-1.37). For all other outcomes including symptoms, cognition, trauma, and family history, the evidence was limited, and therefore, the results were synthesized qualitatively.
CONCLUSION: Almost half of CHR individuals have ever used cannabis. However, cannabis use has not been thoroughly researched regarding frequency and dose of use, and how other factors, such as symptoms, are associated with cannabis in CHR individuals.
AIM: Youth at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis often exhibit difficulties in social functioning and poorer social functioning may be predictive of transition to a psychotic disorder. Therefore, the primary objective of this systematic review was to summarize the impact of all interventions on social functioning in CHR samples. METHOD: Electronic databases PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, EBM, and MEDLINE were searched from 1951 to June 2017. Studies were selected if they included any intervention that reported changes in social functioning in youth at CHR. Data were evaluated using random effects pairwise meta‐analyses, stratified by time, and reported as the standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS: Nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria, including a total of 1513 CHR participants. The mean age was 20.5 years and 47% were male. Cognitive behavioural therapy (4 studies) did not significantly improve social functioning at 6 months (SMD = 0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.35, 0.46), 12 months (SMD = −0.15; 95% CI = –0.38, 0.08) and 18 months (SMD = 0.20; 95% CI = −0.10, 0.50). Omega‐3 (2 studies) did not significantly improve social functioning at 6 months (SMD = 0.01; 95% CI = −0.21, 0.24) and 12 months (SMD = −0.08; 95% CI = −0.33, 0.17). Lastly, cognitive remediation (3 studies) did not significantly improve social functioning at 2‐ to 3‐month follow‐up (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI = –0.18, 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta‐analysis demonstrated that no treatment significantly improved social functioning in youth at CHR. Future randomized control trials are required that are designed to target and improve social functioning in youth at CHR for psychosis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
AIM: Attenuated psychotic symptoms (APSs) have been the primary emphasis in youth at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis for assessing symptomology and determining subsequent transition to a psychotic disorder. Previous reviews primarily focused on the efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) on APS; however, a comprehensive assessment of other interventions to date is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all intervention studies examining APS in CHR youth.
METHOD: The authors searched Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Medline and EBM from inception to May 2017. Studies were selected if they included any intervention that reported follow-up APS in youth at CHR. Interventions were evaluated and stratified by time using both pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMAs). Due to the differences in APS scales, effect sizes were calculated as Hedges g and reported as the standardized mean difference (SMD).
RESULTS: Forty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. In pairwise meta-analyses, CBT was associated with a significant reduction in APS compared to controls at 18- to 24-month follow-up (SMD, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.01; I2 =0%; P = .04, 3 studies, N = 356). In the NMA, integrated psychological therapy, CBT, supportive therapy, family therapy, needs-based interventions, omega-3, risperidone plus CBT and olanzapine were not significantly more effective at reducing APS at 6 and 12 months relative to any other intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: CBT was more effective at reducing APS at long-term follow-up compared to controls. No interventions were significantly more effective at reducing APS compared to all other interventions in the NMA.
BACKGROUND: Early onset psychosis (EOP), referring to psychosis with onset before the age of 18 years, is a more severe form of psychosis associated with worse prognosis. While medication is the treatment of choice, psychological interventions are also considered to have an important role in the management of symptoms and disability associated with this condition. The present review aimed to explore the effectiveness of such interventions. METHOD: An electronic search was conducted on the Embase, Medline, and PsychInfo databases for papers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) referring to psychological interventions in EOP. References of identified papers were hand searched for additional studies. Identified studies were quality assessed. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the present review evaluating cognitive remediation therapy (CRT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), a family intervention and psychoeducation. CRT was associated with improvement in cognitive function and CBT and CRT seem to also have a positive effect in psychosocial functioning. Symptom reduction appears to not be significantly affected by the proposed treatments. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence supporting the effectiveness of psychological interventions in EOP. However, most research on adolescents is focused on CRT and its effects on cognitive deficits. More studies on the effects of psychological interventions in EOP are needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
Preventing psychosis in patients at clinical high risk may be a promising avenue for pre‐emptively ameliorating outcomes of the most severe psychiatric disorder. However, information on how each preventive intervention fares against other currently available treatment options remains unavailable. The aim of the current study was to quantify the consistency and magnitude of effects of specific preventive interventions for psychosis, comparing different treatments in a network meta‐analysis. PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and unpublished/grey literature were searched up to July 18, 2017, to identify randomized controlled trials conducted in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis, comparing different types of intervention and reporting transition to psychosis. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Data were synthesized using network meta‐analyses. The primary outcome was transition to psychosis at different time points and the secondary outcome was treatment acceptability (dropout due to any cause). Effect sizes were reported as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sixteen studies (2,035 patients, 57% male, mean age 20.1 years) reported on risk of transition. The treatments tested were needs‐based interventions (NBI); omega‐3 + NBI; ziprasidone + NBI; olanzapine + NBI; aripiprazole + NBI; integrated psychological interventions; family therapy + NBI; D‐serine + NBI; cognitive behavioural therapy, French & Morrison protocol (CBT‐F) + NBI; CBT‐F + risperidone + NBI; and cognitive behavioural therapy, van der Gaag protocol (CBT‐V) + CBT‐F + NBI. The network meta‐analysis showed no evidence of significantly superior efficacy of any one intervention over the others at 6 and 12 months (insufficient data were available after 12 months). Similarly, there was no evidence for intervention differences in acceptability at either time point. Tests for inconsistency were non‐significant and sensitivity analyses controlling for different clustering of interventions and biases did not materially affect the interpretation of the results. In summary, this study indicates that, to date, there is no evidence that any specific intervention is particularly effective over the others in preventing transition to psychosis. Further experimental research is needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
OBJECTIVE: Youth at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis often demonstrate significant negative symptoms, which have been reported to be predictive of conversion to psychosis and a reduced quality of life but treatment options for negative symptoms remain inadequate. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all intervention studies examining negative symptom outcomes in youth at CHR for psychosis.
METHOD: The authors searched PsycINFO, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and EBM from inception to December 2016. Studies were selected if they included any intervention that reported follow-up negative symptoms in youth at CHR for psychosis. Treatment comparisons were evaluated using both pairwise and network meta-analyses. Due to the differences in negative symptom scales the effect sizes were reported as the standardized mean difference (SMD).
RESULTS: Of 3027 citations, 32 studies met our inclusion criteria, including a total of 2463 CHR participants. N-methyl-D-aspartate-receptor (NMDAR) modulators trended toward a significant reduction in negative symptoms compared to placebo (SMD = -0.54; 95% CI = -1.09 to 0.02; I2 = 0%, P = .06). In respective order of descending effectiveness as per the treatment hierarchy, NMDAR modulators were more effective than family therapy, need-based interventions, risperidone, amisulpride, cognitive behavioral therapy, omega-3, olanzapine, supportive therapy, and integrated psychological interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Although this review demonstrated small-large effect sizes between interventions and a reduction in negative symptoms many relevant studies had small samples and the majority was not designed to target negative symptoms, thus reducing their clinical importance with respect to negative symptoms.
Antecedentes: El manejo intensivo de casos (MCI) es un paquete comunitario de atención con el objetivo de brindar atención a largo plazo a personas con trastornos mentales graves que no requieren la admisión inmediata. El Manejo Intensivo de Casos evolucionó a partir de dos modelos originales de cuidado de la comunidad, el Tratamiento Asertivo Comunitario (ACT) y el Manejo de Casos (CM), donde ICM enfatiza la importancia del pequeño número de casos (menos de 20) y la entrada de alta intensidad. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos de la ICM como un medio para cuidar de personas con enfermedades mentales graves en la comunidad en comparación con los no-ICM (número de casos superior a 20) y con atención comunitaria estándar. No distinguimos entre modelos de ICM. Además, para evaluar si el efecto de la ICM en la hospitalización (número medio de días por mes en el hospital) está influenciado por la fidelidad de la intervención al modelo ACT y por la tasa de uso hospitalario en el lugar donde se realizó el ensayo (nivel basal Del uso hospitalario). Métodos de búsqueda: Se realizaron búsquedas en el Registro de Ensayos del Grupo Cochrane de Esquizofrenia (Cochrane Schizophrenia Group) (última actualización de búsqueda 10 de abril de 2015). CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Todos los ensayos clínicos aleatorios relevantes que se centran en las personas con enfermedad mental grave, de 18 a 65 años de edad y tratados en el entorno de atención comunitaria, donde se compara la ICM con la atención no-ICM o estándar. Recopilación y análisis de datos: Al menos dos revisores seleccionaron de forma independiente los ensayos, evaluaron la calidad y extrajeron los datos. Para los resultados binarios, se calculó la razón de riesgo (RR) y su intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC), en una intención de tratar la base. Para los datos continuos, se estimó la diferencia de medias (MD) entre los grupos y su IC del 95%. Se utilizó un modelo de efectos aleatorios para análisis. Se realizó un análisis de meta-regresión de efectos aleatorios para examinar la asociación de la fidelidad de la intervención al modelo ACT y la tasa de uso hospitalario en el entorno donde se realizó el ensayo con el efecto del tratamiento . Evaluamos la calidad general de los resultados clínicamente importantes usando el enfoque GRADE e investigamos el posible riesgo de sesgo dentro de los ensayos incluidos. La actualización de 2016 incluyó dos estudios más (n = 196) y más publicaciones con datos adicionales para cuatro estudios ya incluidos. La revisión actualizada, por lo tanto, incluye 7524 participantes de 40 ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA). Encontramos datos relevantes para dos comparaciones: ICM versus atención estándar, y ICM versus no-ICM. La mayoría de los estudios tenían un alto riesgo de notificación selectiva. Ningún estudio proporcionó datos para la recaída o una mejora importante en el estado mental. ICM frente a la atención estándar Cuando se comparó la ICM con la atención estándar para el uso de servicios de resultado, ICM redujo ligeramente el número de días en el hospital por mes (n = 3595, 24 ECA, MD -0,86, IC 95% -1,37 a -0,34, Pruebas de calidad). Del mismo modo, para el estado global de resultados, la ICM redujo el número de personas que abandonaron el estudio con anticipación (n = 1798, 13 ECA, RR 0,68, IC del 95%: 0,58 a 0,79, evidencia de baja calidad). Para los eventos adversos de resultado, la evidencia mostró que ICM puede hacer poca o ninguna diferencia en la reducción de la muerte por suicidio (n = 1456, 9 ECA, RR 0,68, IC del 95%: 0,31 a 1,51, evidencia de baja calidad). Además, para el funcionamiento social del resultado, hubo incertidumbre sobre el efecto de la ICM en el desempleo debido a pruebas de muy baja calidad (n = 1129, 4 ECA, RR 0,70, IC del 95%: 0,49 a 1,0, evidencia de muy baja calidad) .2. ICM versus no ICM Cuando se comparó ICM con no-ICM para el uso del servicio de resultados, hubo pruebas de calidad moderada que ICM probablemente hace poca o ninguna diferencia en el número promedio de días en el hospital por mes (n = 2220, 21 ECA, MD -0,08, IC del 95%: -0,37 a 0,21, evidencia de calidad moderada) o en el número promedio de admisiones (n = 678, 1 RCT, MD -0,18, IC del 95%: -0,41 a 0,05, A no-ICM. Del mismo modo, los resultados mostraron que la ICM puede reducir el número de participantes que abandonan la intervención tempranamente (n = 1970, 7 ECA, RR 0,70, IC del 95%: 0,52 a 0,95, evidencia de baja calidad) y que ICM puede hacer poca o ninguna diferencia en Reduciendo la muerte por suicidio (n = 1152, 3 ECA, RR 0,88, IC del 95%: 0,27 a 2,84, evidencia de baja calidad). Por último, para el funcionamiento social de los resultados, hubo incertidumbre sobre el efecto de la ICM sobre el desempleo en comparación con los no ICM (n = 73, 1 ECA, RR 1,46, IC del 95% 0,45 a 4,74, evidencia de muy baja calidad) . La fidelidad a la ACT en la meta-regresión encontró que i.) Cuanto más ICM es adherente al modelo de ACT, mejor es en la disminución del tiempo en el hospital (coeficiente de la "fidelidad de la organización" -0.36, IC del 95% -0.66 a -0.07 ); Y ii.) Cuanto mayor es el uso hospitalario de referencia en la población, mejor ICM se encuentra en la disminución del tiempo en el hospital (coeficiente variable de "uso hospitalario de referencia" -0.20; IC del 95%: -0.32 a -0.10). Al combinar ambas variables dentro del modelo, la "fidelidad de la organización" ya no es significativa, pero el resultado del "uso básico del hospital" todavía influye significativamente en el tiempo en el hospital (coeficiente de regresión -0,18; IC del 95%: -0,29 a -0,07; P = 0,0027) . CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Basado en evidencia de muy baja a moderada calidad, la MCI es eficaz para mejorar muchos resultados relevantes para las personas con enfermedad mental severa. En comparación con la atención estándar, ICM puede reducir la hospitalización y aumentar la retención en la atención. También mejoró globalmente el funcionamiento social, aunque el efecto de ICM sobre el estado mental y la calidad de vida sigue siendo poco claro. El manejo intensivo de casos es al menos valioso para las personas con enfermedades mentales severas en el subgrupo de aquellos con un alto nivel de hospitalización (alrededor de cuatro días al mes en los últimos dos años). Los modelos de gestión de casos intensivos con alta fidelidad a la organización original del equipo de ACT fueron más eficaces en la reducción del tiempo en el hospital. Sin embargo, no está claro qué ganancia general ICM proporciona encima de un enfoque menos formal de no ICM. Se justifican más ensayos que comparen ICM actual con atención estándar o sin ICM, sin embargo actualmente no conocemos ninguna revisión comparando la ICM con la atención estándar, y esto debería ser realizado.
In this systematic review, we will consider and debate studies that have explored the effects of ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in three major, and somehow related, developmental psychiatric disorders: Autism, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity disorder and Psychosis. The impact of ω-3 PUFAs on clinical symptoms and, if possible, brain trajectory in children and adolescents suffering from these illnesses will be reviewed and discussed, considering the biological plausibility of the effects of omega-3 fatty acids, together with their potential perspectives in the field. Heterogeneity in study designs will be discussed in the light of differences in results and interpretation of studies carried out so far.
OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on first- and second-generation antipsychotics (FGAs and SGAs) for the treatment of various psychiatric and behavioral conditions in children, adolescents, and young adults (ages ≤ 24 years).
DATA SOURCES: Eight electronic databases, gray literature, trial registries, and reference lists.
METHODS: Two reviewers conducted study selection and risk of bias assessment independently, and resolved discrepancies by consensus. One reviewer extracted and a second verified the data. We conducted meta-analyses when appropriate and network meta-analysis across conditions for changes to body composition. We rated strength of evidence for prespecified outcomes.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five studies (95 trials and 40 observational studies) were included. None of the evidence was rated as high strength of evidence; results having moderate strength (i.e., probably an accurate effect) are presented (with n studies) below.SCHIZOPHRENIA AND RELATED PSYCHOSES (N = 39): Compared with placebo, SGAs as a class probably increase response rates, decrease slightly (not clinically significant for many patients) negative and positive symptoms, and improve slightly global impressions of improvement, severity, and functioning. There is likely little or no difference between high and low doses of quetiapine for clinical severity and functioning. Many outcomes for individual drug comparisons were of low or insufficient strength of evidence. BIPOLAR DISORDER (N = 19): Compared with placebo, SGAs probably decrease mania, decrease depression symptoms slightly, and improve symptom severity and global functioning to a small extent. SGAs (and aripiprazole alone) probably increase response and remission rates versus placebo for manic/mixed phases. Quetiapine likely makes little or no difference in depression. AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS (N = 23): Compared with placebo, SGAs as a class probably decrease irritability, and decrease slightly lethargy/social withdrawal, stereotypy, and inappropriate speech; they likely increase response rates and (slightly) clinical severity. It is likely that aripiprazole and risperidone decrease irritability. ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACVTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD) AND DISRUPTIVE, IMPULSE-CONTROL, AND CONDUCT DISORDERS (N = 13): Compared with placebo, SGAs as a class (and risperidone individually) probably decrease conduct problems and aggression. Risperidone alone likely decreases hyperactivity in children with a primary diagnosis of conduct disorders or with ADHD but not responding to stimulants. OTHER CONDITIONS: All outcomes had low or insufficient strength of evidence for tic disorders (n = 12), obsessive-compulsive disorder (n = 1), depression (n = 1), eating disorders (n = 3), and behavioral issues (n = 2). HARMS ACROSS CONDITIONS: From network meta-analysis, olanzapine was more harmful for gains in weight and body mass index (BMI) than other SGAs except for clozapine and lurasidone; results were most robust for relative harm over aripiprazole, quetiapine, and risperidone, and most applicable to the short term. Findings from pairwise meta-analysis between different SGAs were similar, except for showing longer term benefit for quetiapine and risperidone versus olanzapine, and little or no short-term differences between risperidone and quetiapine, or between different doses of aripiprazole, asenapine, or quetiapine. FGAs probably cause slightly less harm for weight and BMI compared with SGAs. There is probably little or no difference in risk for somnolence between different doses of asenapine or quetiapine. There is likely little or no difference in risk for mortality or prolonged QT interval in the short term for SGAs as a class. SGAs versus placebo/no treatment probably increase short-term risk for high triglyceride levels, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, and somnolence.
CONCLUSION: SGAs probably improve to some extent key intermediate outcomes for which they are usually prescribed, but they have a poorer harms profile than placebo or no antipsychotic treatment, particularly for body composition and somnolence. Data for head-to-head comparisons within and between classes were generally limited and rated as insufficient or low strength of evidence. Evidence was sparse for patient-important outcomes (e.g., health-related quality of life) and outcomes for young children (<8 years). Key priorities for research are long-term comparative effectiveness and development of systems for monitoring harms.
BACKGROUND: During the past decades deinstitutionalisation policies have led to a transition from inpatient towards community mental health care. Many European countries implement Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) as an alternative for inpatient care for "difficult to reach" children and adolescents with severe mental illness. ACT is a well-organized low-threshold treatment modality; patients are actively approached in their own environment, and efforts are undertaken to strengthen the patient's motivation for treatment. The assumption is that ACT may help to avoid psychiatric hospital admissions, enhance cost-effectiveness, stimulate social participation and support, and reduce stigma. ACT has been extensively investigated in adults with severe mental illness and various reviews support its effectiveness in this patient group. However, to date there is no review available regarding the effectiveness of youth-ACT. It is unknown whether youth-ACT is as effective as it is in adults. This review aims to assess the effects of youth-ACT on severity of psychiatric symptoms, general functioning, and psychiatric hospital admissions.
METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsychINFO and CINAHL published up to March 2017. To assess methodological quality of the included studies, the Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine grading system was used.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in this review. There are indications that youth-ACT is effective in reducing severity of psychiatric symptoms, improving general functioning, and reducing duration and frequency of psychiatric hospital admissions.
CONCLUSIONS: The current literature on youth-ACT is limited but promising. There are indications that youth-ACT is effective in reducing severity of psychiatric symptoms, improving general functioning, and reducing duration and frequency of psychiatric hospital admissions. The effect of youth-ACT may be comparable with the effect of ACT in adults. Similar as in adult ACT, the studies on youth-ACT found effects that vary from small to large. Randomized experimental research designs are needed to further corroborate effectiveness.
The objectives of this review were to understand the prevalence of cannabis use and how cannabis is associated with transition to psychosis, symptoms, cognition, trauma and family history in clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis individuals.
METHOD:
A systematic literature review was conducted to find studies that examined cannabis use in CHR individuals, with no limitations on the geographical area, and included publications up to November 2018. Studies were screened for inclusion based on detailed criteria, and data were extracted on cannabis use and associated outcomes. A quantitative synthesis by meta-analysis was performed where appropriate, otherwise, a qualitative synthesis was conducted.
RESULTS:
Overall, 36 studies met inclusion criteria with an average age of 20.1 years and 58.4% males. Prevalence of lifetime cannabis use was 48.7%, whereas current cannabis use was 25.8% and the prevalence of cannabis use disorder/abuse or dependence was 14.9% across the studies. All cannabis use results had statistically significant heterogeneity ranging from 75.7 to 92.8%. The most commonly reported association with cannabis use was transition to psychosis, although the pooled relative risk (RR) was not statistically significant (RR = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 0.89-1.37). For all other outcomes including symptoms, cognition, trauma, and family history, the evidence was limited, and therefore, the results were synthesized qualitatively.
CONCLUSION:
Almost half of CHR individuals have ever used cannabis. However, cannabis use has not been thoroughly researched regarding frequency and dose of use, and how other factors, such as symptoms, are associated with cannabis in CHR individuals.
