BACKGROUND: Psychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted effect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with first episode psychosis (FEP) and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.' Specialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced a recent-onset psychosis. The purpose of SEI teams is to intensively treat people with psychosis early in the course of the illness with the goal of increasing the likelihood of recovery and reducing the need for longer-term mental health treatment. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, and occupational, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. A previous Cochrane Review of SEI found preliminary evidence that SEI may be superior to standard community mental health care (described as 'treatment as usual (TAU)' in this review) but these recommendations were based on data from only one trial. This review updates the evidence for the use of SEI services.
OBJECTIVES: To compare specialised early intervention (SEI) teams to treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis.
SEARCH METHODS: On 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting useable data as included studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs and one cluster-RCT with a total of 1145 participants. The mean age in the trials was between 23.1 years (RAISE) and 26.6 years (OPUS). The included participants were 405 females (35.4%) and 740 males (64.6%). All trials took place in community mental healthcare settings. Two trials reported on recovery from psychosis at the end of treatment, with evidence that SEI team care may result in more participants in recovery than TAU at the end of treatment (73% versus 52%; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.97; 2 studies, 194 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three trials provided data on disengagement from services at the end of treatment, with fewer participants probably being disengaged from mental health services in SEI (8%) in comparison to TAU (15%) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; 3 studies, 630 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer admissions to psychiatric hospital than TAU at the end of treatment (52% versus 57%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 4 studies, 1145 participants) and low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer psychiatric hospital days (MD -27.00 days, 95% CI -53.68 to -0.32; 1 study, 547 participants). Two trials reported on general psychotic symptoms at the end of treatment, with no evidence of a difference between SEI and TAU, although this evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -4.58 to 3.75; 2 studies, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A different pattern was observed in assessment of general functioning with an end of trial difference that may favour SEI (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66; 2 studies, 467 participants; low-certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether the use of SEI resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality at end of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.20; 3 studies, 741 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment in three of the four included trials; the remaining trial had unclear risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention, we considered all trials at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Two trials had low risk of bias and two trials had high risk of bias for blinding of outcomes assessments. Three trials had low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, while one trial had high risk of bias. Two trials had low risk of bias, one trial had high risk of bias, and one had unclear risk of bias for selective reporting.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that SEI may provide benefits to service users during treatment compared to TAU. These benefits probably include fewer disengagements from mental health services (moderate-certainty evidence), and may include small reductions in psychiatric hospitalisation (low-certainty evidence), and a small increase in global functioning (low-certainty evidence) and increased service satisfaction (moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence regarding the effect of SEI over TAU after treatment has ended is uncertain. Further evidence investigating the longer-term outcomes of SEI is needed. Furthermore, all the eligible trials included in this review were conducted in high-income countries, and it is unclear whether these findings would translate to low- and middle-income countries, where both the intervention and the comparison conditions may be different.
AIMS: This systematic review examines the effectiveness of the psycho-educational interventions (PEIs) targeted at people diagnosed with schizophrenia and their primary caregivers on improving knowledge level of schizophrenia and health-related outcomes.
METHODS: A total of 28 studies were reviewed from December 1999 to May 2015. The methods described by Centre for Reviews and Dissemination were used to guide this review.
RESULTS: The PEIs showed consistent improvement in the knowledge level of schizophrenia among participants for various follow-up intervals. In addition, PEIs were found to be superior to treatment as usual in influencing health-related outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Implications of the findings for mental health care practice and education and recommendations are discussed.
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.
Despite convincing evidence of short-term symptom control and functional recovery of patients with psychosis after receiving early intervention (EI) services, little is known about the long-term outcomes of EI for these patients. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of EI services in improving long-term outcomes of patients with psychosis. A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Medline, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and EMBASE electronic databases to identify studies that evaluated long-term outcomes of patients with psychosis measured 5 years or beyond after entering the EI service. Of 13,005 articles returned from the search, 14 eligible articles reporting study cohorts from nine EI services in seven countries and regions were identified. Data on study design, patient characteristics, intervention components, and outcomes were extracted and reviewed. Only a few studies reported better longitudinal outcomes for negative symptoms, mortality, employment, and hospitalization in patients received EI services. However, results from cross-sectional measurements provided little evidence for long-term impacts of EI services on clinical and functional outcomes. A dilution effect of benefits over time was also demonstrated in several studies. This review highlights the gap in current EI service provision and suggests possible future directions for service improvement and further research.
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.
BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychosocial treatment that aims to help individuals re-evaluate their appraisals of their experiences that can affect their level of distress and problematic behaviour. CBT is now recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as an add-on treatment for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Other psychosocial therapies that are often less expensive are also available as an add-on treatment for people with schizophrenia. This review is also part of a family of Cochrane Reviews on CBT for people with schizophrenia.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of CBT compared with other psychosocial therapies as add-on treatments for people with schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study Based Register of Trials (latest 6 March, 2017). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with schizophrenia who were randomly allocated to receive, in addition to their standard care, either CBT or any other psychosocial therapy. Outcomes of interest included relapse, global state, mental state, adverse events, social functioning, quality of life and satisfaction with treatment. We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably screened references and selected trials. Review authors, working independently, assessed trials for methodological quality and extracted data from included studies. We analysed dichotomous data on an intention-to-treat basis and continuous data with 60% completion rate. Where possible, for binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model for analyses unless there was unexplained high heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table for our main outcomes of interest.
MAIN RESULTS: The review now includes 36 trials with 3542 participants, comparing CBT with a range of other psychosocial therapies that we classified as either active (A) (n = 14) or non active (NA) (n = 14). Trials were often small and at high or unclear risk of bias. When CBT was compared with other psychosocial therapies, no difference in long-term relapse was observed (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; participants = 375; studies = 5, low-quality evidence). Clinically important change in global state data were not available but data for rehospitalisation were reported. Results showed no clear difference in long term rehospitalisation (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.14; participants = 943; studies = 8, low-quality evidence) nor in long term mental state (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; participants = 249; studies = 4, low-quality evidence). No long-term differences were observed for death (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.98; participants = 627; studies = 6, low-quality evidence). Only average endpoint scale scores were available for social functioning and quality of life. Social functioning scores were similar between groups (long term Social Functioning Scale (SFS): MD 8.80, 95% CI -4.07 to 21.67; participants = 65; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence), and quality of life scores were also similar (medium term Modular System for Quality of Life (MSQOL): MD -4.50, 95% CI -15.66 to 6.66; participants = 64; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There was a modest but clear difference favouring CBT for satisfaction with treatment - measured as leaving the study early (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; participants = 2392; studies = 26, low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence based on data from randomised controlled trials indicates there is no clear and convincing advantage for cognitive behavioural therapy over other - and sometimes much less sophisticated and expensive - psychosocial therapies for people with schizophrenia. It should be noted that although much research has been carried out in this area, the quality of evidence available is mostly low or of very low quality. Good quality research is needed before firm conclusions can be made.
AIM: The effects of nutrient-based treatments, including adjunctive vitamin or antioxidant supplementation, have been explored extensively in long-term schizophrenia. However, no systematic evaluation of trials in “first-episode psychosis” (FEP) has been conducted, despite the potential benefits of using these treatments during the early stages of illness. Therefore, we aimed to review all studies examining efficacy, tolerability and the biological mechanisms of action, of nutrient supplementation in FEP. METHODS: A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted from inception to July 2017. All information on feasibility, clinical outcomes and mechanistic findings from nutrient supplementation clinical trials was extracted and systematically synthesized. RESULTS: Eleven studies with a total of 451 patients with FEP (from 8 independent randomized controlled trials) were eligible for inclusion. Six studies examined omega-3 fatty acids, with inconsistent effects on psychiatric symptoms. However, mechanistic studies found significant improvements in hippocampal neuronal health and brain glutathione. Antioxidants “n-acetyl cysteine” (<i>n</i> = 1) and vitamin C (<i>n</i> = 2) also improved oxidative status in FEP, which was associated with reduced psychiatric symptoms. No benefits were found for vitamin E (<i>n</i> = 1). Finally, one study trialling the amino acid taurine, showed significant improvements in positive symptoms and psychosocial functioning. CONCLUSION: There is preliminary evidence that taurine improves outcomes in FEP, whereas effects of omega-3 and antioxidant vitamins/amino-acids are inconsistent; perhaps mainly benefitting patients with high levels of oxidative stress. Future studies should evaluate multifaceted dietary and supplementation interventions in FEP; targeting-specific nutritional deficits and the range of aberrant biological processes implicated in the disorder. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
Psychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted effect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with first episode psychosis (FEP) and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.' Specialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced a recent-onset psychosis. The purpose of SEI teams is to intensively treat people with psychosis early in the course of the illness with the goal of increasing the likelihood of recovery and reducing the need for longer-term mental health treatment. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, and occupational, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. A previous Cochrane Review of SEI found preliminary evidence that SEI may be superior to standard community mental health care (described as 'treatment as usual (TAU)' in this review) but these recommendations were based on data from only one trial. This review updates the evidence for the use of SEI services.
OBJECTIVES:
To compare specialised early intervention (SEI) teams to treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis.
SEARCH METHODS:
On 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting useable data as included studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included three RCTs and one cluster-RCT with a total of 1145 participants. The mean age in the trials was between 23.1 years (RAISE) and 26.6 years (OPUS). The included participants were 405 females (35.4%) and 740 males (64.6%). All trials took place in community mental healthcare settings. Two trials reported on recovery from psychosis at the end of treatment, with evidence that SEI team care may result in more participants in recovery than TAU at the end of treatment (73% versus 52%; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.97; 2 studies, 194 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three trials provided data on disengagement from services at the end of treatment, with fewer participants probably being disengaged from mental health services in SEI (8%) in comparison to TAU (15%) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; 3 studies, 630 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer admissions to psychiatric hospital than TAU at the end of treatment (52% versus 57%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 4 studies, 1145 participants) and low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer psychiatric hospital days (MD -27.00 days, 95% CI -53.68 to -0.32; 1 study, 547 participants). Two trials reported on general psychotic symptoms at the end of treatment, with no evidence of a difference between SEI and TAU, although this evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -4.58 to 3.75; 2 studies, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A different pattern was observed in assessment of general functioning with an end of trial difference that may favour SEI (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66; 2 studies, 467 participants; low-certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether the use of SEI resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality at end of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.20; 3 studies, 741 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment in three of the four included trials; the remaining trial had unclear risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention, we considered all trials at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Two trials had low risk of bias and two trials had high risk of bias for blinding of outcomes assessments. Three trials had low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, while one trial had high risk of bias. Two trials had low risk of bias, one trial had high risk of bias, and one had unclear risk of bias for selective reporting.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
There is evidence that SEI may provide benefits to service users during treatment compared to TAU. These benefits probably include fewer disengagements from mental health services (moderate-certainty evidence), and may include small reductions in psychiatric hospitalisation (low-certainty evidence), and a small increase in global functioning (low-certainty evidence) and increased service satisfaction (moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence regarding the effect of SEI over TAU after treatment has ended is uncertain. Further evidence investigating the longer-term outcomes of SEI is needed. Furthermore, all the eligible trials included in this review were conducted in high-income countries, and it is unclear whether these findings would translate to low- and middle-income countries, where both the intervention and the comparison conditions may be different.
