Losing participants before the trial ends erodes credibility of findings

Antiglucocorticoid and related treatments for psychosis

BACKGROUND

Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis dysregulation has been implicated in the development and relapse of psychotic disorders. Elevated cortisol secretion has been positively linked with symptom severity in people with psychosis. Antiglucocorticoid and related drugs that target the HPA axis may be useful for the treatment of individuals with psychosis.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the effects of antiglucocorticoid and related drugs for the treatment of psychosis, when used alone or in combination with antipsychotic medication.2. To determine whether the effects of these medications differs between those in a prodromal phase or first episode of psychosis, and those with more established illness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (August 2009 and April 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antiglucocorticoid and related drugs compared to placebo (either as a sole treatment or as an adjunct to atypical antipsychotics, typical antipsychotics, antidepressants or other combination treatment) for people with a primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, or for individuals at high risk of developing a psychotic disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs for continuous measures. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies that randomly assigned 509 people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or psychotic depression. No trials were conducted in patients at their first episode of psychotic illness and none included populations at high risk for developing psychosis. Our pre-stated outcomes of interest were mental state, global state, general functioning, adverse effects and quality of life.Two trials compared antiglucocorticoid drugs (mifepristone) versus placebo as sole treatment. Limited data from one trial showed no difference in the proportion responding to mifepristone when mental state was assessed immediately post intervention using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (n = 5, 1 RCT, MD -5.20, 95% CI -17.91 to 7.51; very low-quality evidence); depressive symptoms (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) total) were also similar between groups (n = 5, 1 RCT, MD 1.67, 95% CI -16.44 to 19.78; very low-quality evidence). However, a significant difference favoured treatment at short-term follow-up for global state (30% reduction in total BPRS, n = 221, 1 RCT, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; low-grade quality evidence). This effect was also seen for short-term positive psychotic symptoms (50% reduction in BPRS positive symptom subscale, n = 221, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.84; low-grade quality evidence). Participants receiving mifepristone experienced a similar overall number of adverse effects as those receiving placebo (n = 226, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.09; moderate-quality evidence). No data on general functioning or quality of life were available.One trial compared an antiglucocorticoid, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), as an adjunct to atypical antipsychotic treatment to adjunctive placebo. Data for main outcomes of interest were of low quality, and analysis of useable data showed no significant effects of treatment on mental state or adverse effects. Data on global state, general functioning and quality of life were not available.Data from six trials comparing antiglucocorticoid drugs as an adjunct to combination treatment versus adjunctive placebo showed no significant differences between groups in mean endpoint scores for overall psychotic symptoms (n = 171, 6 RCTs, SMD 0.01, 95% CI - 0.29 to 0.32) or positive psychotic symptoms (n = 151, 5 RCTs, SMD -0.07, 95% CI - 0.40 to 0.25). Data from three trials showed no differences between groups in mean endpoint scores for negative symptoms (n = 94, 3 RCTs, MD 2.21, 95% CI -0.14 to 4.55). One study found improvements in global state that were similar between groups (n = 30, 1 RCT, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.06; very low-quality evidence). In this comparison, pooled results showed that antiglucorticoids caused a greater overall number of adverse events (n = 199, 7 RCTs, RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.33 to 5.32; moderate quality evidence), but no quality of life data were available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Good evidence is insufficient to conclude whether antiglucocorticoid drugs provide effective treatment for psychosis. Some global state findings suggest a favourable effect for mifepristone, and a few overall adverse effect findings favour placebo. Additional large randomised controlled trials are needed to justify findings.

'As required' medication regimens for seriously mentally ill people in hospital

BACKGROUND

Drugs used to treat psychotic illnesses may take weeks to be effective. In the interim, additional 'as required' doses of medication can be used to calm patients in psychiatric wards. The practice is widespread, with 20% to 50% of people on acute psychiatric wards receiving at least one 'as required' dose of psychotropic medication during their admission.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of 'as required' medication regimens with regular patterns of medication for the treatment of psychotic symptoms or behavioural disturbance, thought to be secondary to psychotic illness. These regimens may be given alone or in addition to any regular psychotropic medication for the long-term treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PsycINFO and registries of clinical trials, in November 2001, March 2006, July 2012 andOctober 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We aimed to include all relevant randomised controlled trials involving hospital inpatients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses, comparing any regimen of medication administered for the short-term relief of behavioural disturbance, or psychotic symptoms, to be given at the discretion of ward staff ('as required', 'prn') with fixed non-discretionary patterns of drug administration of the same drug(s). This was in addition to regular psychotropic medication for the long-term treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses where prescribed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected abstracts and papers for inclusion. If trials had been found, we would have extracted data from the papers and quality assessed the data. For dichotomous data we would have calculated the risk ratios (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We would have conducted analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. If data were available we would have completed a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We have not been able to identify any randomised trials comparing 'as required' medication regimens to regular regimens of the same drug. Our main outcomes of interest were important changes in (i) mental state, (ii) behaviour, (iii) dose of medication used, (iv) adverse events, (v) satisfaction with care and (iv) cost of care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence from within randomised trials to support this common practice. Current practice is based on clinical experience and habit rather than high quality evidence.

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

A particularly difficult challenge for community treatment of people with serious mental illnesses is the delivery of an acceptable level of care during the acute phases of severe mental illness. Crisis-intervention models of care were developed as a possible solution.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of crisis-intervention models for anyone with serious mental illness experiencing an acute episode compared to the standard care they would normally receive. If possible, to compare the effects of mobile crisis teams visiting patients' homes with crisis units based in home-like residential houses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials. There is no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. This search was undertaken in 1998 and then updated 2003, 2006, 2010 and September 29, 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials of crisis-intervention models versus standard care for people with severe mental illnesses that met our inclusion criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The update search September 2014 found no further new studies for inclusion, the number of studies included in this review remains eight with a total of 1144 participants. Our main outcomes of interest are hospital use, global state, mental state, quality of life, participant satisfaction and family burden. With the exception of mental state, it was not possible to pool data for these outcomes.Crisis intervention may reduce repeat admissions to hospital (excluding index admissions) at six months (1 RCT, n = 369, RR 0.75 CI 0.50 to 1.13, high quality evidence), but does appear to reduce family burden (at six months: 1 RCT, n = 120, RR 0.34 CI 0.20 to 0.59, low quality evidence), improve mental state (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) three months: 2 RCTs, n = 248, MD -4.03 CI -8.18 to 0.12, low quality evidence), and improve global state (Global Assessment Scale (GAS) 20 months; 1 RCT, n = 142, MD 5.70, -0.26 to 11.66, moderate quality evidence). Participants in the crisis-intervention group were more satisfied with their care 20 months after crisis (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8): 1 RCT, n = 137, MD 5.40 CI 3.91 to 6.89, moderate quality evidence). However, quality of life scores at six months were similar between treatment groups (Manchester Short Assessment of quality of life (MANSA); 1 RCT, n = 226, MD -1.50 CI -5.15 to 2.15, low quality evidence). Favourable results for crisis intervention were also found for leaving the study early and family satisfaction. No differences in death rates were found. Some studies suggested crisis intervention to be more cost-effective than hospital care but all numerical data were either skewed or unusable. We identified no data on staff satisfaction, carer input, complications with medication or number of relapses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Care based on crisis-intervention principles, with or without an ongoing homecare package, appears to be a viable and acceptable way of treating people with serious mental illnesses. However only eight small studies with unclear blinding, reporting and attrition bias could be included and evidence for the main outcomes of interest is low to moderate quality. If this approach is to be widely implemented it would seem that more evaluative studies are still needed.

Zuclopenthixol versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Zuclopenthixol is an older antipsychotic that has three distinct formulations (zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride, zuclopenthixol acetate or Acuphase and zuclopenthixol decanoate). Although it has been in common use for many years no previous systematic review of its efficacy compared to placebo in schizophrenia has been undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of all formulations of zuclopenthixol when compared with a placebo in schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 November 2013 and 20 October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We also checked the references of all included studies and contacted authors of included studies for relevant studies and data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing zuclopenthixol of any form with placebo for treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted and cross-checked data independently. We identified only a small number of studies so we cross checked all studies. We calculated fixed-effect relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data. We analysed by intention-to-treat. Where possible we converted continuous outcomes into dichotomous outcomes. When this was not possible we used mean differences (MD) for continuous variables. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two studies, with a total of 65 participants, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Overall the quality of the two studies was low, with small study populations and significant sources of bias, so we were not able to use all the data in our comparisons. . The studies were old from 1968 and 1972, and would be unlikely to pass modern peer review standard. We were only able to find short-term data and only trials randomising zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride. We also hoped to identify data for zuclopenthixol acetate versus placebo and zuclopenthixol decanoate versus placebo comparisons. We were unable to identify any studies that included data on these two fairly widely used drugs.For our primary outcome of interest, clinically significant improvement, we found one study that provided useable data. Global state measured by clinical global impression scale (CGI) improvement showed different ratings when assessed by a psychiatrist or a nurse.The psychiatrist scores failed to achieve statistical significance, however when assessed by nursing staff, the difference favouring zuclopenthixol did reach statistical significance (1 RCT n = 29, RR 2.57 95% CI 1.06 to 6.20, very low quality data). There was also evidence of increased sedation with those treated with zuclopenthixol when compared with placebo (1 RCT n = 29, RR 4.67 95% CI 1.23 to 17.68, very low quality data). 'Leaving the study early' data were equivocal. No useable data were available for outcomes such as relapse, mental state, death, quality of life, service use or economic costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For people with schizophrenia this review shows that zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride may help with the symptoms of schizophrenia. The review provides some trial evidence that, if taking zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride, people may experience some adverse effects and sedation compared with placebo. However this evidence is of very low quality and with some significant sources of bias. There are no data for zuclopenthixol decanoate or zuclopenthixol acetate.For clinicians, the available trial data on the absolute effectiveness of zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride do support its use but the limited nature of the data and significant sources of bias make conclusions hard to draw. Zuclopenthixol in all three forms is a commonly used antipsychotic and it is disappointing that there are so few data regarding its use.

Asenapine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a highly prevalent and chronic disorder that comprises a wide range of symptomatology. Asenapine is a recently developed atypical antipsychotic that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects of asenapine for adults with schizophrenia or other schizophrenia-like disorders by comparing it with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (July 04, 2014) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitation for inclusion of records into the register. We inspected references of all included studies for further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Our review includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing asenapine with placebo in adults (however defined) with schizophrenia or related disorders, including schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder and delusional disorder, again, by any means of diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We inspected citations from the searches and identified relevant abstracts, and extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and for continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD). We used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table which included our outcomes of interest, where possible. We used a fixed-effect model for our analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We obtained and scrutinised 41 potentially relevant records, and from these we could include only six trials (n = 1835). Five of the six trials had high risk of attrition bias and all trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Results showed a clinically important change in global state (1 RCT, n = 336, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97, low-quality evidence) and mental state (1 RCT, n = 336, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.86, very low-quality evidence) at short-term amongst people receiving asenapine. People receiving asenapine demonstrated significant reductions in negative symptoms (1 RCT, n = 336, MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.29 to 0.09, very low-quality evidence) at short-term. Individuals receiving asenapine demonstrated significantly fewer incidents of serious adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 386, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.63, very low-quality evidence) at medium-term. There was no clear difference in people discontinuing the study for any reason between asenapine and placebo at short-term (5 RCTs, n = 1046, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04, very low-quality evidence). No trial reported data for extrapyramidal symptoms or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some, albeit preliminary, evidence that asenapine provides an improvement in positive, negative, and depressive symptoms, whilst minimising the risk of adverse effects. However due to the low-quality and limited quantity of evidence, it remains difficult to recommend the use of asenapine for people with schizophrenia. We identify a need for large-scale, longer-term, better-designed and conducted randomised controlled trials investigating the clinical effects and safety of asenapine.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (brief versus standard duration) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy for people with schizophrenia is a psychotherapeutic approach that establishes links between thoughts, emotions and behaviours and challenges dysfunctional thoughts. There is some evidence to suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy for people with psychosis (CBTp) might be an effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. There are however, limitations in its provision due to available resource and training issues. One way to tackle this issue might be to offer a brief version of CBTp.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of brief CBTp (6 to 10 regular sessions given in less than 4 months and using a manual) for people with schizophrenia compared with standard CBTp (12 to 20 regular sessions given in 4 to 6 months and using a manual).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (August 21, 2013 and August 26, 2015) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and registries of Clinical Trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We inspected all references of the selected articles for further relevant trials. We also contacted experts in the field regarding brief CBTp studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving adults with schizophrenia or related disorders, comparing brief cognitive behavioural therapy for people with psychosis versus standard CBTp.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and assessed studies for inclusion using pre-specified inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We found only seven studies which used a brief version of CBTp, but no study compared brief CBTp with CBTp of standard duration. No studies could be included.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no literature available to compare brief with standard CBTp for people with schizophrenia. We cannot, therefore, conclude whether brief CBTp is as effective, less effective or even more effective than standard courses of the same therapy. This lack of evidence for brief CBTp has serious implications for research and practice. Well planned, conducted and reported randomised trials are indicated.

Yoga versus standard care for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Yoga is an ancient spiritual practice that originated in India and is currently accepted in the Western world as a form of relaxation and exercise. It has been of interest for people with schizophrenia to determine its efficacy as an adjunct to standard-care treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of yoga versus standard care for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2012 and January 29, 2015), which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We searched the references of all included studies. There were no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with schizophrenia comparing yoga to standard-care control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review team independently selected studies, quality rated these, 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 the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed mixed-effect and fixed-effect models for analyses. We examined data for heterogeneity (I(2) technique), assessed risk of bias for included studies, and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies in the review. All outcomes were short term (less than six months). There were clear differences in a number of outcomes in favour of the yoga group, although these were based on one study each, with the exception of leaving the study early. These included mental state (improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, 1 RCT, n = 83, RR 0.70 CI 0.55 to 0.88, medium-quality evidence), social functioning (improvement in Social Occupational Functioning Scale, 1 RCT, n = 83, RR 0.88 CI 0.77 to 1, medium-quality evidence), quality of life (average change 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) quality-of-life subscale, 1 RCT, n = 60, MD 15.50, 95% CI 4.27 to 26.73, low-quality evidence), and leaving the study early (8 RCTs, n = 457, RR 0.91 CI 0.6 to 1.37, medium-quality evidence). For the outcome of physical health, there was not a clear difference between groups (average change SF-36 physical-health subscale, 1 RCT, n = 60, MD 6.60, 95% CI -2.44 to 15.64, low-quality evidence). Only one study reported adverse effects, finding no incidence of adverse events in either treatment group. This review was subject to a considerable number of missing outcomes, which included global state, change in cognition, costs of care, effect on standard care, service intervention, disability, and activities of daily living.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Even though we found some positive evidence in favour of yoga over standard-care control, this should be interpreted cautiously in view of outcomes largely based each on one study with limited sample sizes and short-term follow-up. Overall, many outcomes were not reported and evidence presented in this review is of low to moderate quality - -too weak to indicate that yoga is superior to standard-care control for the management of schizophrenia.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

People with schizophrenia often experience symptoms which fail to fully respond to antipsychotic medication. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been proposed as a new treatment for people with schizophrenia, especially those who experience persistent auditory hallucinations.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of TMS alone, compared with sham TMS or with 'standard management' and any other comparison interventions in reducing psychotic symptoms associated with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (June 2006, June 2008, April 2013). This register is compiled by methodical searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, LILACS, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED, and Sociofile, and is supplemented with handsearching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials recruiting at least five participants and comparing TMS with sham TMS or any other treatment for people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. We used a fixed-effect model. We assessed overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies with 1473 participants in the review. We found significant differences in favour of temporoparietal TMS compared to sham TMS for global state measured on the CGI scale (7 RCTs, n = 224, MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.23, very low-quality evidence) and positive symptoms measured on the PANSS scale (5 RCTs, n = 127, MD -6.09, 95% CI -10.95 to -1.22, very low-quality evidence). Participants experienced significantly more headaches in the temporoparietal TMS group (10 RCTs, n = 392, RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.56 to 4.50, very low-quality evidence). However, no more participants left the study early from the TMS group than from the sham group (very low-quality evidence). Cognitive state was assessed using 39 different measures, and all were equivocal (very low-quality evidence).We included only two trials which compared temporoparietal TMS with standard treatment. In both trials the participants received first- and second-generation antipsychotic medication in both treatment groups, therefore TMS was used an adjunctive therapy to medication. We found no significant differences in the number of participants that showed clinical improvement in global state (1 RCT, n = 100, RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.57) or left the study early (2 RCTs, n = 140, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.46) (both very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on global state score, mental state, cognitive state and adverse effects.For prefrontal TMS compared to sham TMS, global state was measured on three different scales, all of which presented equivocal results (very low quality evidence). We could not pool data for mental state on the PANSS scale due to high heterogeneity. Cognitive state was assessed using 19 different measures, with 15/19 being equivocal (very low-quality evidence). Prefrontal TMS caused more headaches (6 RCTs, n = 164, RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.22 to 6.26, very low-quality evidence) but there was no difference in the number of participants leaving the study early (very low-quality evidence). No studies reported data for clinical improvement.We found a significant difference in favour of prefrontal theta burst stimulation TMS compared to sham TMS for mental state on the PANNS scale (3 RCTs, n = 108, MD -5.71, 95% CI -9.32 to -2.10, very low evidence). We found no difference for clinical improvement, cognitive state, number of headaches, and leaving the study early (very low-quality evidence).None of the included studies reported satisfaction with care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on this review, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of TMS to treat symptoms of schizophrenia. Although some evidence suggests that TMS, and in particular temporoparietal TMS, may improve certain symptoms (such as auditory hallucinations and positive symptoms of schizophrenia) compared to sham TMS, the results were not robust enough to be unequivocal across the assessment measures used. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any added benefit with TMS used as an adjunctive therapy to antipsychotic medication.The overall quality of evidence was graded as very low due to risk of bias, and this was accompanied by an imprecision in estimates due to the relatively small number of participants in the studies. Thus, consideration is required in improving the quality of trial processes, as well as the quality of reporting of ongoing and future TMS trials, so as to facilitate accurate future judgements in assessing risk of bias. Differences in TMS techniques in relation to stimulation intensity, stimulation length, brain areas stimulated and variations in the design of sham TMS all contributed to the heterogeneity of study findings and limited the interpretation and applicability of the results. In addition, the trials assessed their outcomes with a variety of scales, and usable data were limited. Therefore, to better evaluate the treatment effects of TMS in people with schizophrenia, we favour the use of standardised treatment protocols and outcome measures.

Social skills programmes for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Social skills programmes (SSP) are treatment strategies aimed at enhancing the social performance and reducing the distress and difficulty experienced by people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and can be incorporated as part of the rehabilitation package for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective is to investigate the effects of social skills training programmes, compared to standard care, for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (November 2006 and December 2011) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials.A further search for studies has been conducted by the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group in 2015, 37 citations have been found and are currently being assessed by review authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials for social skills programmes versus standard care involving people with serious mental illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 randomised trials (975 participants). These evaluated social skills programmes versus standard care, or discussion group. We found evidence in favour of social skills programmes compared to standard care on all measures of social functioning. We also found that rates of relapse and rehospitalisation were lower for social skills compared to standard care (relapse: 2 RCTs, n = 263, RR 0.52 CI 0.34 to 0.79, very low quality evidence), (rehospitalisation: 1 RCT, n = 143, RR 0.53 CI 0.30 to 0.93, very low quality evidence) and participants' mental state results (1 RCT, n = 91, MD -4.01 CI -7.52 to -0.50, very low quality evidence) were better in the group receiving social skill programmes. Global state was measured in one trial by numbers not experiencing a clinical improvement, results favoured social skills (1 RCT, n = 67, RR 0.29 CI 0.12 to 0.68, very low quality evidence). Quality of life was also improved in the social skills programme compared to standard care (1 RCT, n = 112, MD -7.60 CI -12.18 to -3.02, very low quality evidence). However, when social skills programmes were compared to a discussion group control, we found no significant differences in the participants social functioning, relapse rates, mental state or quality of life, again the quality of evidence for these outcomes was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to standard care, social skills training may improve the social skills of people with schizophrenia and reduce relapse rates, but at present, the evidence is very limited with data rated as very low quality. When social skills training was compared to discussion there was no difference on patients outcomes. Cultural differences might limit the applicability of the current results, as most reported studies were conducted in China. Whether social skills training can improve social functioning of people with schizophrenia in different settings remains unclear and should be investigated in a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants in this population group are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April week 3, 2014), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2014 week 17) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to April week 4, 2014). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs allocating adults (18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis) comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into RevMan 5 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved a total of nine studies (861 participants), with seven studies contributing to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants and one-three armed study compared two antidepressants and a placebo arm. For the acute phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class on symptoms of depression compared with placebo when measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants) or as a proportion of people who had depression (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants). No trials reported data on the follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, providing very low quality evidence for the difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants). No clear evidence of an effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from the analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low quality evidence). We found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class in terms of dropouts due to any cause compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.53, six RCTs, 455 participants), as well as between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low quality evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results clear implications for practice cannot be made. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent should be prescribed may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer with depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder, are urgently needed to better inform clinical practice.

Treatments for delusional disorder

BACKGROUND

Delusional disorder is commonly considered to be difficult to treat. Antipsychotic medications are frequently used and there is growing interest in a potential role for psychological therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in the treatment of delusional disorder.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of medication (antipsychotic medication, antidepressants, mood stabilisers) and psychotherapy, in comparison with placebo in delusional disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (28 February 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating treatments in delusional disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors extracted data independently for the one eligible trial. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis with a fixed-effect model. Where possible, we calculated illustrative comparative risks for primary outcomes. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again with a fixed-effect model. We assessed the risk of bias of the included study and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one randomised trial met our inclusion criteria, despite our initial search yielding 141 citations. This was a small study, with 17 people completing a trial comparing CBT to an attention placebo (supportive psychotherapy) for people with delusional disorder. Most participants were already taking medication and this was continued during the trial. We were not able to include any randomised trials on medications of any type due to poor data reporting, which left us with no usable data for these trials. For the included study, usable data were limited, risk of bias varied and the numbers involved were small, making interpretation of data difficult. In particular there were no data on outcomes such as global state and behaviour, nor any information on possible adverse effects.A positive effect for CBT was found for social self esteem using the Social Self-Esteem Inventory (1 RCT, n = 17, MD 30.5, CI 7.51 to 53.49, very low quality evidence), however this is only a measure of self worth in social situations and may thus not be well correlated to social function. More people left the study early if they were in the supportive psychotherapy group with 6/12 leaving early compared to 1/6 from the CBT group, but the difference was not significant (1 RCT, n = 17, RR 0.17, CI 0.02 to 1.18, moderate quality evidence). For mental state outcomes the results were skewed making interpretation difficult, especially given the small sample.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite international recognition of this disorder in psychiatric classification systems such as ICD-10 and DSM-5, there is a paucity of high quality randomised trials on delusional disorder. There is currently insufficient evidence to make evidence-based recommendations for treatments of any type for people with delusional disorder. The limited evidence that we found is not generalisable to the population of people with delusional disorder. Until further evidence is found, it seems reasonable to offer treatments which have efficacy in other psychotic disorders. Further research is needed in this area and could be enhanced in two ways: firstly, by conducting randomised trials specifically for people with delusional disorder and, secondly, by high quality reporting of results for people with delusional disorder who are often recruited into larger studies for people with a variety of psychoses.

Psychoeducation for siblings of people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Many people with severe mental illness (SMI) have siblings. Siblings are often both natural agents to promote service users' recovery and vulnerable to mental ill health due to the negative impact of psychosis within the family. Despite a wealth of research evidence supporting the effectiveness of psychoeducation for service users with SMI and their family members, in reducing relapse and promoting compliance with treatment, siblings remain relatively invisible in clinical service settings as well as in research studies. If psychoeducational interventions target siblings and improve siblings' knowledge, coping with caring and overall wellbeing, they could potentially provide a cost-effective option for supporting siblings with resulting benefits for service users' outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of psychoeducation compared with usual care or any other intervention in promoting wellbeing and reducing distress of siblings of people affected by SMI.The secondary objective was, if possible, to determine which type of psychoeducation is most effective.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register and screened the reference lists of relevant reports and reviews (12th November 2013). We contacted trial authors for unpublished and specific data on siblings' outcomes.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials focusing on psychoeducational interventions targeting siblings of all ages (on their own or amongst other family members including service users) of individuals with SMI, using any means and formats of delivery, i.e. individual (family), groups, computer-based.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the abstracts and extracted data and two other authors independently checked the screening and extraction process. We contacted authors of trials to ascertain siblings' participation in the trials and seek sibling-specific data in those studies where siblings' data were grouped together with other participants' (most commonly other family members'/carers') outcomes. We calculated the risk difference (RD), its 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. We presented continuous data using the mean difference statistic (MD) and 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for the included study and rated quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

MAIN RESULTS

We found 14 studies that included siblings amongst other family members in receipt of psychoeducational interventions. However, we were only able to include one small trial with relevant and available data (n = 9 siblings out of n = 84 family member/carer-participants) comparing psychoeducational intervention with standard care in a community care setting, over a duration of 21 months. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of psychoeducational interventions compared with standard care on 'siblings' quality of life' (n = 9, MD score 3.80 95% CI -0.26 to 7.86, low quality of evidence), coping with (family) burden (n = 9, MD -8.80 95% CI -15.22 to -2.34, low quality of evidence). No sibling left the study early by one year (n = 9, RD 0.00 CI -0.34 to 0.34, low quality of evidence). Low quality and insufficient evidence meant we were unable to determine the effects of psychoeducational interventions compared with standard care on service users' global mental state (n = 9, MD -0.60 CI -3.54 to 2.38, low quality of evidence), their frequency of re-hospitalisation (n = 9, MD -0.70 CI -2.46 to 1.06, low quality of evidence) or duration of inpatient stay (n = 9, MD -2.60 CI -6.34 to 1.14, low quality of evidence), whether their siblings received psychoeducation or not. No study data were available to address the other primary outcomes: 'siblings' psychosocial wellbeing', 'siblings' distress' and adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most studies evaluating psychoeducational interventions recruited siblings along with other family members. However, the proportion of siblings in these studies was low and outcomes for siblings were not reported independently from those of other types of family members. Indeed, only data from one study with nine siblings were available for the review. The limited study data we obtained provides no clear good quality evidence to indicate psychoeducation is beneficial for siblings' wellbeing or for clinical outcomes of people affected by SMI. More randomised studies are justified and needed to understand the role of psychoeducation in addressing siblings' needs for information and support.

Quetiapine immediate release v. placebo for schizophrenia: systematic review, meta-analysis and reappraisal

BACKGROUND

Immediate-release (IR) quetiapine has been used to treat schizophrenia since 1997, although all the principal placebo-controlled trials have >50% missing outcome data. New studies with relatively lower rates of participant withdrawal have since been published.

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of quetiapine IR for schizophrenia, with consideration of outcome quality and clinical meaningfulness of results, and to examine the potential impact of missing data on the main efficacy findings.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing quetiapine IR and placebo (or subtherapeutic dose in relapse prevention trials) for the treatment of schizophrenia (PROSPERO registration CRD4201100165). Primary outcomes were change in overall symptoms and response rates. We also examined whether high rates of participant withdrawal (≥50%) attenuated effect sizes, and assessed the impact of making different assumptions about these people's outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 15 relevant trials (including 2 unpublished), providing the first 12-week data for this drug and the first data on self-reported quality of life. We found quetiapine IR to have a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 6.5 points (95% CI -8.9 to -4) on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores, which corresponds to a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.33 (95% CI -0.46 to -0.21). Longer trials reported larger mean differences favouring quetiapine IR, but the overall estimate was smaller if more conservative assumptions about the outcomes of people who left the trial early were made. Approximately 21 people needed to take quetiapine IR for 1 person to experience at least a 50% improvement in PANSS score. No difference in quality of life was observed (two RCTs), although small to moderate improvements in social functioning were found (three RCTs). Quetiapine IR caused sedation and increased rates of clinically significant weight gain, but no extrapyramidal effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine IR has a small beneficial effect on overall psychotic symptoms over 2-12 weeks, but also leads to weight gain and sedation.

Supportive therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Supportive therapy is often used in everyday clinical care and in evaluative studies of other treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of supportive therapy compared with standard care, or other treatments in addition to standard care for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (November 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and comparing supportive therapy with any other treatment or standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality rated these and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated the risk ratio (RR) using a fixed-effect model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where possible, we undertook intention-to-treat analyses. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) fixed-effect with 95% CIs. We estimated heterogeneity (I(2) technique) and publication bias. We used GRADE to rate quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Four new trials were added after the 2012 search. The review now includes 24 relevant studies, with 2126 participants. Overall, the evidence was very low quality.We found no significant differences in the primary outcomes of relapse, hospitalisation and general functioning between supportive therapy and standard care.There were, however, significant differences favouring other psychological or psychosocial treatments over supportive therapy. These included hospitalisation rates (4 RCTs, n = 306, RR 1.82 CI 1.11 to 2.99, very low quality of evidence), clinical improvement in mental state (3 RCTs, n = 194, RR 1.27 CI 1.04 to 1.54, very low quality of evidence) and satisfaction of treatment for the recipient of care (1 RCT, n = 45, RR 3.19 CI 1.01 to 10.7, very low quality of evidence). For this comparison, we found no evidence of significant differences for rate of relapse, leaving the study early and quality of life.When we compared supportive therapy to cognitive behavioural therapy CBT), we again found no significant differences in primary outcomes. There were very limited data to compare supportive therapy with family therapy and psychoeducation, and no studies provided data regarding clinically important change in general functioning, one of our primary outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient data to identify a difference in outcome between supportive therapy and standard care. There are several outcomes, including hospitalisation and general mental state, indicating advantages for other psychological therapies over supportive therapy but these findings are based on a few small studies where we graded the evidence as very low quality. Future research would benefit from larger trials that use supportive therapy as the main treatment arm rather than the comparator.

Pyridoxal 5 phosphate for neuroleptic-induced tardive dyskinesia

BACKGROUND

Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic and disabling abnormal movement disorder affecting the muscles of the face, neck, tongue and the limbs. It is a common side effect of long-term antipsychotic medication use in individuals with schizophrenia and other related psychotic disorders. While there are no known effective treatments for tardive dyskinesia to date, some reports suggest that pyridoxal 5 phosphate may be effective in reducing the severity of tardive dyskinesia symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of pyridoxal 5 phosphate (vitamin B6 or Pyridoxine or Pyridoxal phosphate) in the treatment of neuroleptic-induced tardive dyskinesia among people with schizophrenia and other related psychotic disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane schizophrenia group's register of clinical trials was searched (January 2013) using the phrase: [*Pyridoxal* OR *Pyridoxine* OR *P5P* OR *PLP* OR *tardoxal* OR *Vitamin B6* O *Vitamin B 6* R in title, abstract or index terms of REFERENCE, or interventions of STUDY. References of relevant identified studies were handsearched and where necessary, the first authors of relevant studies were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies described as randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness pyridoxal 5 phosphate with placebo in the treatment of neuroleptic-induced tardive dyskinesia among patients with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently extracted data from each selected study. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed-effect model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs, again based on a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to rate quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 12 records retrieved by the search, three trials published in 2001, 2003 and 2007, involving 80 inpatients with schizophrenia, aged 18 to 71 years, admitted in a psychiatric facility and followed up for a period nine weeks to 26 weeks, were included. Overall, pyridoxal 5 phosphate produced a significant improvement in tardive dyskinesia symptoms when compared with placebo, assessed by a change in Extrapyramidal Symptoms Rating Scale (ESRS) scores from baseline to the end of the first phase of the included studies (2 RCTs n = 65, RR 19.97, CI 2.87 to 139.19, low quality evidence). The endpoint tardive dyskinesia score (a measure of its severity) assessed with the ESRS, was significantly lower among participants on pyridoxal 5 phosphate compared to those on placebo (2 RCTs n = 60, MD -4.07, CI -6.36 to -1.79, low quality evidence).It was unclear whether pyridoxal 5 phosphate led to more side effects (n = 65, 2 RCTs, RR 3.97, CI 0.20 to 78.59, low quality evidence) or caused deterioration in tardive dyskinesia symptoms when compared to placebo (n = 65, 2 RCTs, RR 0.16, CI 0.01 to 3.14, low quality evidence). Five participants taking pyridoxal 5 phosphate withdrew from the study because they were not willing to take more medications while none of the participants taking placebo discontinued their medications (n = 65, 2 RCTs, RR 8.72, CI 0.51 to 149.75, low quality evidence).There was no significant difference in the endpoint positive and negative psychiatric symptoms scores, measured using the Positive and Negative symptoms Scale (PANSS) between participants taking pyridoxal 5 phosphate and those taking placebo. For the positive symptoms: (n = 15, 1 RCT, MD -1.50, CI -4.80 to 1.80, low quality evidence). For negative the symptoms: (n = 15, 1 RCT, MD -1.10, CI -5.92 to 3.72, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pyridoxal 5 phosphate may have some benefits in reducing the severity of tardive dyskinesia symptoms among individuals with schizophrenia. However, the quality of evidence supporting the effectiveness of pyridoxal 5 phosphate in treating tardive dyskinesia is low, based on few studies, short follow-up periods, small sample sizes and inadequate adherence to standardised reporting guidelines for randomised controlled trials among the included studies.

Psychoeducation (brief) for people with serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

Those with serious/severe mental illness, especially schizophrenia and schizophrenic-like disorders, often have little to no insight regarding the presence of their illness. Psychoeducation may be defined as the education of a person with a psychiatric disorder regarding the symptoms, treatments, and prognosis of that illness. Brief psychoeducation is a short period of psychoeducation; although what constitutes 'brief psychoeducation' can vary. A previous systematic review has shown that the median length of psychoeducation is around 12 weeks. In this current systematic review, we defined 'brief psychoeducation' as programmes of 10 sessions or less.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of brief psychoeducational interventions as a means of helping severely mentally ill people when added to 'standard' care, compared with the efficacy of standard care alone.The secondary objective is to investigate whether there is evidence that a particular kind (individual/ family/group) of brief psychoeducational intervention is superior to others.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register September 2013 using the phrase:[*Psychoeducat* in interventions of STUDY]. Reference lists of included studies were also inspected for further relevant studies. We also contacted authors of included study for further information regarding further data or details of any unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing brief psychoeducation with any other intervention for treatment of people with severe mental illness. If a trial was described as 'double blind' but implied randomisation, we entered such trials in a sensitivity analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors extracted data independently from included papers. We contacted authors of trials for additional and missing data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of homogeneous dichotomous data. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference (MD), again with 95% CIs. We used a fixed-effect model for data synthesis, and also assessed data using a random-effects model in a sensitivity analysis. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

We included twenty studies with a total number of 2337 participants in this review. Nineteen studies compared brief psychoeducation with routine care or conventional delivery of information. One study compared brief psychoeducation with cognitive behavior therapy.Participants receiving brief psychoeducation were less likely to be non-compliant with medication than those receiving routine care in the short term (n = 448, 3 RCTs, RR 0.63 CI 0.41 to 0.96, moderate quality evidence) and medium term (n = 118, 1 RCT, RR 0.17 CI 0.05 to 0.54, low quality evidence).Compliance with follow-up was similar between the two groups in the short term (n = 30, 1 RCT, RR 1.00, CI 0.24 to 4.18), medium term (n = 322, 4 RCTs, RR 0.74 CI 0.50 to 1.09) and long term (n = 386, 2 RCTs, RR 1.19, CI 0.83 to 1.72).Relapse rates were significantly lower amongst participants receiving brief psychoeducation than those receiving routine care in the medium term (n = 406, RR 0.70 CI 0.52 to 0.93, moderate quality evidence), but not in the long term.Data from a few individual studies supported that brief psychoeducation: i) can improve the long-term global state (n = 59, 1 RCT, MD -6.70 CI -13.38 to -0.02, very low quality evidence); ii) promote improved mental state in short term (n = 60, 1 RCT, MD -2.70 CI -4.84 to -0.56,low quality evidence) and medium term; iii) can lower the incidence and severity of anxiety and depression.Social function such as rehabilitation status (n = 118, 1 RCT, MD -13.68 CI -14.85 to -12.51, low quality evidence) and social disability (n = 118, 1 RCT, MD -1.96 CI -2.09 to -1.83, low quality evidence) were also improved in the brief psychoeducation group. There was no difference found in quality of life as measured by GQOLI-74 in the short term (n = 62, 1 RCT, MD 0.63 CI -0.79 to 2.05, low quality evidence), nor the death rate in either groups (n = 154, 2 RCTs, RR 0.99, CI 0.15 to 6.65, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on mainly low to very low quality evidence from a limited number of studies, brief psychoeducation of any form appears to reduce relapse in the medium term, and promote medication compliance in the short term. A brief psychoeducational approach could potentially be effective, but further large, high-quality studies are needed to either confirm or refute the use of this approach.

Perphenazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Perphenazine is an old phenothiazine antipsychotic with a potency similar to haloperidol. It has been used for many years and is popular in the northern European countries and Japan.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical effects and safety of perphenazine for those with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our original search using the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (September 2013), references of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of included studies in order to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials that compared perphenazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses. We excluded trials of depot formulations of perphenazine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts. We ordered papers, inspected and quality assessed them. We extracted data, again working independently. If loss to follow-up was greater than 50% we considered results as 'prone to bias'. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD), both with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed quality of data using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluationtool) and assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-one studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with a total of 4662 participants (of which 4522 were receiving the drugs relevant to our comparison) and presented data that could be used for at least one comparison. The trial centres were located in Europe (especially Scandinavia), Japan and Northern America.When comparing perphenazine with placebo, for our primary outcome of clinical response, results favoured perphenazine with significantly more people receiving placebo rated as either 'no better or deterioration' for global state than people receiving perphenazine (1 RCT, n = 61 RR 0.32 CI 0.13 to 0.78, very low quality evidence). More people receiving placebo relapsed, although not a statistically significant number (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 0.14 CI 0.02 to 1.07, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in the perphenazine versus placebo comparison. Experiences of dystonia were equivocal between groups (1 RCT, n = 48, RR 1.00 CI 0.07 to 15.08, very low quality evidence); other outcomes not reported in this comparison include serious adverse events, economic outcomes, and service use and hospitalisation.For the comparison of perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs, no real differences in effect between the drugs were found. There was no significant difference between groups for those considered 'no better or deterioration' (17 RCTs, n = 1879, RR 1.04 CI 0.91 to 1.17, very low quality evidence). For mental state outcome of 'no effect' of the study drug, there was again no significant difference between groups (4 RCTs, n = 383, RR 1.24 CI 0.61 to 2.52, very low quality evidence). Death was not reported in any of the included studies. There was no significant difference in rates of dystonia with perphenazine versus any other antipsychotic drugs (4 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36 CI 0.23 to 8.16, very low quality evidence), nor was there a significant difference between groups for serious adverse events (2 RCTs, n = 1760, RR 0.98 CI 0.68 to 1.41, very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although perphenazine has been used in randomised trials for more than 50 years, incomplete reporting and the variety of comparators used make it impossible to draw clear conclusions. All data for the main outcomes in this review were of very low quality evidence. At best we can say that perphenazine showed similar effects and adverse events as several of the other antipsychotic drugs. Since perphenazine is a relatively inexpensive and frequently used compound, further trials are justified to clarify the properties of this classical antipsychotic drug.

Fluphenazine decanoate (depot) and enanthate for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Intramuscular injections (depot preparations) offer an advantage over oral medication for treating schizophrenia by reducing poor compliance. The benefits gained by long-acting preparations, however, may be offset by a higher incidence of adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of fluphenazine decanoate and enanthate versus oral anti-psychotics and other depot neuroleptic preparations for individuals with schizophrenia in terms of clinical, social and economic outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2011 and October 16, 2013), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on people with schizophrenia comparing fluphenazine decanoate or enanthate with placebo or oral anti-psychotics or other depot preparations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, assessed the quality, and extracted data of the included studies. For dichotomous data, we estimated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. We used the mean difference (MD) for normal continuous data. We excluded continuous data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. Tests of heterogeneity and for publication bias were undertaken. We used a fixed-effect model for all analyses unless there was high heterogeneity. For this update. we assessed risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

This review now includes 73 randomised studies, with 4870 participants. Overall, the quality of the evidence is low to very low.Compared with placebo, use of fluphenazine decanoate does not result in any significant differences in death, nor does it reduce relapse over six months to one year, but one longer-term study found that relapse was significantly reduced in the fluphenazine arm (n = 54, 1 RCT, RR 0.35, CI 0.19 to 0.64, very low quality evidence). A very similar number of people left the medium-term studies (six months to one year) early in the fluphenazine decanoate (24%) and placebo (19%) groups, however, a two-year study significantly favoured fluphenazine decanoate (n = 54, 1 RCT, RR 0.47, CI 0.23 to 0.96, very low quality evidence). No significant differences were found in mental state measured on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) or in extrapyramidal adverse effects, although these outcomes were only reported in one small study each. No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with placebo reported clinically significant changes in global state or hospital admissions.Fluphenazine decanoate does not reduce relapse more than oral neuroleptics in the medium term (n = 419, 6 RCTs, RR 1.46 CI 0.75 to 2.83, very low quality evidence). A small study found no difference in clinically significant changes in global state. No difference in the number of participants leaving the study early was found between fluphenazine decanoate (17%) and oral neuroleptics (18%), and no significant differences were found in mental state measured on the BPRS. Extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly less for people receiving fluphenazine decanoate compared with oral neuroleptics (n = 259, 3 RCTs, RR 0.47 CI 0.24 to 0.91, very low quality evidence). No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with oral neuroleptics reported death or hospital admissions.No significant difference in relapse rates in the medium term between fluphenazine decanoate and fluphenazine enanthate was found (n = 49, 1 RCT, RR 2.43, CI 0.71 to 8.32, very low quality evidence), immediate- and short-term studies were also equivocal. One small study reported the number of participants leaving the study early (29% versus 12%) and mental state measured on the BPRS and found no significant difference for either outcome. No significant difference was found in extrapyramidal adverse effects between fluphenazine decanoate and fluphenazine enanthate. No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with fluphenazine enanthate reported death, clinically significant changes in global state or hospital admissions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are more data for fluphenazine decanoate than for the enanthate ester. Both are effective antipsychotic preparations. Fluphenazine decanoate produced fewer movement disorder effects than other oral antipsychotics but data were of low quality, and overall, adverse effect data were equivocal. In the context of trials, there is little advantage of these depots over oral medications in terms of compliance but this is unlikely to be applicable to everyday clinical practice.

Haloperidol versus first-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is worldwide one of the most frequently used antipsychotic drugs with a very high market share. Previous narrative, unsystematic reviews found no differences in terms of efficacy between the various first-generation ("conventional", "typical") antipsychotic agents. This established the unproven psychopharmacological assumption of a comparable efficacy between the first-generation antipsychotic compounds codified in textbooks and treatment guidelines. Because this assumption contrasts with the clinical impression, a high-quality systematic review appeared highly necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of haloperidol with other first-generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2011 and July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. To identify further relevant publications, we screened the references of all included studies and contacted the manufacturers of haloperidol for further relevant trials and missing information on identified studies. Furthermore, we contacted the corresponding authors of all included trials for missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral haloperidol with another oral first-generation antipsychotic drug (with the exception of the low-potency antipsychotics chlorpromazine, chlorprothixene, levopromazine, mesoridazine, perazine, prochlorpromazine, and thioridazine) in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. Clinically important response to treatment was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were global state, mental state, behaviour, overall acceptability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason), overall efficacy (attrition due to inefficacy of treatment), overall tolerability (attrition due to adverse events), and specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration`s 'Risk of bias' tool.We analysed dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes with mean differences (MD), both with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). All analyses were based on a random-effects model and we preferably used data on an intention-to-treat basis where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

The systematic review currently includes 63 randomised trials with 3675 participants. Bromperidol (n = 9), loxapine (n = 7), and trifluoperazine (n = 6) were the most frequently administered antipsychotics comparator to haloperidol. The included studies were published between 1962 and 1993, were characterised by small sample sizes (mean: 58 participants, range from 18 to 206) and the predefined outcomes were often incompletely reported. All results for the main outcomes were based on very low or low quality data. In many trials the mechanism of randomisation, allocation, and blinding was frequently not reported. In short-term studies (up to 12 weeks), there was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidol and the pooled group of the other first-generation antipsychotic agents in terms of the primary outcome "clinically important response to treatment" (40 RCTs, n = 2132, RR 0.93 CI 0.87 to 1.00). In the medium-term trials, haloperidol may be less effective than the other first-generation antipsychotic group but this evidence is based on only one trial (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.51 CI 0.37 to 0.69).Based on limited evidence, haloperidol alleviated more positive symptoms of schizophrenia than the other antipsychotic drugs. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in global state, other mental state outcomes, behaviour, leaving the study early due to any reason, due to inefficacy, as well as due to adverse effects. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the meta-analytic calculations support the statements of previous narrative, unsystematic reviews suggesting comparable efficacy of first-generation antipsychotics. In efficacy-related outcomes, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the prototypal drug haloperidol and other, mainly high-potency first-generation antipsychotics. Additionally, we demonstrated that haloperidol is characterised by a similar risk profile compared to the other first-generation antipsychotic compounds. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term. The results were limited by the low methodological quality in many of the included original studies. Data for the main results were low or very low quality. Therefore, future clinical trials with high methodological quality are required.

HIV prevention advice for people with serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

People with serious mental illness have rates of Human Immuno-deficiency Virus (HIV) infection higher than expected in the general population for the same demographic area. Despite this elevated prevalence, UK national strategies around sexual health and HIV prevention do not state that people with serious mental illness are a high risk group. However, a significant proportion in this group are sexually active and engage in HIV-risk behaviours including having multiple sexual partners, infrequent use of condoms and trading sex for money or drugs. Therefore we propose the provision of HIV prevention advice could enhance the physical and social well being of this population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of HIV prevention advice in reducing morbidity, mortality and preserving the quality of life in people with serious mental illness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (24 January, 2012), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There is no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include all randomised controlled trials focusing on HIV prevention advice versus standard care or comparing HIV prevention advice with other more focused methods of delivering care or information for people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors (NW, AC, AA, GT) independently screened search results and did not identify any studies that fulfilled the review's criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any randomised studies that evaluated advice regarding HIV for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to both people with serious mental illness and HIV risk are possible.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Policy makers, clinicians, researchers and service users need to collaborate to produce guidance on how best to provide advice for people with serious mental illness in preventing the spread of HIV infection. It is entirely feasible that this could be within the context of a well-designed simple large randomised study.

Acupuncture for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture, with many categories such as traditional acupuncture, electroacupuncture, laser acupuncture, and acupoint injection, has been shown to be relatively safe with few adverse effects. It is accessible and inexpensive, at least in China, and is likely to be widely used there for psychotic symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of acupuncture, alone or in combination treatments compared with placebo (or no treatment) or any other treatments for people with schizophrenia or related psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2012), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registries. We also inspected references of identified studies and contacted relevant authors for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials involving people with schizophrenia-like illnesses, comparing acupuncture added to standard dose antipsychotics with standard dose antipsychotics alone, acupuncture added to low dose antipsychotics with standard dose antipsychotics, acupuncture with antipsychotics, acupuncture added to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) drug with TCM drug, acupuncture with TCM drug, electric acupuncture convulsive therapy with electroconvulsive therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably extracted data from all included studies, discussed any disagreement, documented decisions and contacted authors of studies when necessary. We analysed binary outcomes using a standard estimation of risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences with 95% CI. For homogeneous data we used fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

After an update search in 2012 the review now includes 30 studies testing different forms of acupuncture across six different comparisons. All studies were at moderate risk of bias.When acupuncture plus standard antipsychotic treatment was compared with standard antipsychotic treatment alone, people were at less risk of being 'not improved' (n = 244, 3 RCTs, medium-term RR 0.40 CI 0.28 to 0.57, very low quality evidence). Mental state findings were mostly consistent with this finding as was time in hospital (n = 120, 1 RCT, days MD -16.00 CI -19.54 to -12.46, moderate quality evidence). If anything, adverse effects were less for the acupuncture group (e.g. central nervous system, insomnia, short-term, n = 202, 3 RCTs, RR 0.30 CI 0.11 to 0.83, low quality evidence).When acupuncture was added to low dose antipsychotics and this was compared with standard dose antipsychotic drugs, relapse was less in the experimental group (n = 170, 1 RCT, long-term RR 0.57 CI 0.37 to 0.89, very low quality evidence) but there was no difference for the outcome of 'not improved'. Again, mental state findings were mostly consistent with the latter. Incidences of extrapyramidal symptoms - akathisia, were less for those in the acupuncture added to low dose antipsychotics group (n = 180, 1 RCT, short-term RR 0.03 CI 0.00 to 0.49, low quality evidence) - as dry mouth, blurred vision and tachycardia.When acupuncture was compared with antipsychotic drugs of known efficacy in standard doses, there were equivocal data for outcomes such as 'not improved' using different global state criteria. Traditional acupuncture added to TCM drug had benefit over use of TCM drug alone (n = 360, 2 RCTs, RR no clinically important change 0.11 CI 0.02 to 0.59, low quality evidence), but when traditional acupuncture was compared with TCM drug directly there was no significant difference in the short-term. However, we found that participants given electroacupuncture were significantly less likely to experience a worsening in global state (n = 88, 1 RCT, short-term RR 0.52 CI 0.34 to 0.80, low quality evidence).In the one study that compared electric acupuncture convulsive therapy with electroconvulsive therapy there were significantly different rates of spinal fracture between the groups (n = 68, 1 RCT, short-term RR 0.33 CI 0.14 to 0.81, low quality evidence). Attrition in all studies was minimal. No studies reported death, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, or economic outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence suggests that acupuncture may have some antipsychotic effects as measured on global and mental state with few adverse effects. Better designed large studies are needed to fully and fairly test the effects of acupuncture for people with schizophrenia.

Cannabis and schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a mental illness causing disordered beliefs, ideas and sensations. Many people with schizophrenia smoke cannabis, and it is unclear why a large proportion do so and if the effects are harmful or beneficial. It is also unclear what the best method is to allow people with schizophrenia to alter their cannabis intake.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of specific psychological treatments for cannabis reduction in people with schizophrenia.To assess the effects of antipsychotics for cannabis reduction in people with schizophrenia.To assess the effects of cannabinoids (cannabis related chemical compounds derived from cannabis or manufactured) for symptom reduction in people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, 12 August 2013, which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED and PsycINFO.We searched all references of articles selected for inclusion for further relevant trials. We contacted the first author of included studies for unpublished trials or data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials involving cannabinoids and schizophrenia/schizophrenia-like illnesses, which assessed:1) treatments to reduce cannabis use in people with schizophrenia;2) the effects of cannabinoids on people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations, selected papers and then re-inspected the studies if there were discrepancies, and extracted data. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed-effect model. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight randomised trials, involving 530 participants, which met our selection criteria.For the cannabis reduction studies no one treatment showed superiority for reduction in cannabis use. Overall, data were poorly reported for many outcomes of interest. Our main outcomes of interest were medium-term data for cannabis use, global state, mental state, global functioning, adverse events, leaving the study early and satisfaction with treatment. 1. Reduction in cannabis use: adjunct psychological therapies (specifically about cannabis and psychosis) versus treatment as usualResults from one small study showed people receiving adjunct psychological therapies specifically about cannabis and psychosis were no more likely to reduce their intake than those receiving treatment as usual (n = 54, 1 RCT, MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.44 to 2.24, moderate quality evidence). Results for other main outcomes at medium term were also equivocal. No difference in mental state measured on the PANSS positive were observed between groups (n = 62, 1 RCT, MD -0.30 95% CI -2.55 to 1.95, moderate quality evidence). Nor for the outcome of general functioning measured using the World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF (n = 49, 1 RCT, MD 0.90 95% CI -1.15 to 2.95, moderate quality evidence). No data were reported for the other main outcomes of interest 2. Reduction in cannabis use: adjunct psychological therapy (specifically about cannabis and psychosis) versus adjunct non-specific psychoeducation One study compared specific psychological therapy aimed at cannabis reduction with general psychological therapy. At three-month follow-up, the use of cannabis in the previous four weeks was similar between treatment groups (n = 47, 1 RCT, RR 1.04 95% CI 0.62 to 1.74, moderate quality evidence). Again, at a medium-term follow-up, the average mental state scores from the Brief Pscychiatric Rating Scale-Expanded were similar between groups (n = 47, 1 RCT, MD 3.60 95% CI - 5.61 to 12.81, moderate quality evidence). No data were reported for the other main outcomes of interest: global state, general functioning, adverse events, leaving the study early and satisfaction with treatment. 3. Reduction in cannabis use: antipsychotic versus antipsychotic In a small trial comparing effectiveness of olanzapine versus risperidone for cannabis reduction, there was no difference between groups at medium-term follow-up (n = 16, 1 RCT, RR 1.80 95% CI 0.52 to 6.22, moderate quality evidence). The number of participants leaving the study early at medium term was also similar (n = 28, 1 RCT, RR 0.50 95% CI 0.19 to 1.29, moderate quality evidence). Mental state data were reported, however they were reported within the short term and no difference was observed. No data were reported for global state, general functioning, and satisfaction with treatment.With regards to adverse effects data, no study reported medium-term data. Short-term data were presented but overall, no real differences between treatment groups were observed for adverse effects. 4. Cannabinoid as treatment: cannabidiol versus amisulprideAgain, no data were reported for any of the main outcomes of interest at medium term. There were short-term data reported for mental state using the BPRS and PANSS, no overall differences in mental state were observed between treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results are limited and inconclusive due to the small number and size of randomised controlled trials available and quality of data reporting within these trials. More research is needed to a) explore the effects of adjunct psychological therapy that is specifically about cannabis and psychosis as currently there is no evidence for any novel intervention being better than standard treatment,for those that use cannabis and have schizophrenia b) decide the most effective drug treatment in treating those that use cannabis and have schizophrenia, and c) assess the effectiveness of cannabidiol in treating schizophrenia. Currently evidence is insufficient to show cannabidiol has an antipsychotic effect.

Virtual reality for treatment compliance for people with serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

Virtual reality (VR) is computerised real-time technology, which can be used an alternative assessment and treatment tool in the mental health field. Virtual reality may take different forms to simulate real-life activities and support treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of virtual reality to support treatment compliance in people with serious mental illness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (most recent, 17th September 2013) and relevant reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised studies comparing virtual reality with standard care for those with serious mental illnesses. We defined virtual reality as a computerised real-time technology using graphics, sound and other sensory input, which creates the interactive computer-mediated world as a therapeutic tool.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For homogeneous dichotomous data the risk difference (RD) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We assessed risk of bias and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three short-term trials (total of 156 participants, duration five to 12 weeks). Outcomes were prone to at least a moderate risk of overestimating positive effects. We found that virtual reality had little effects regarding compliance (3 RCTs, n = 156, RD loss to follow-up 0.02 CI -0.08 to 0.12, low quality evidence), cognitive functioning (1 RCT, n = 27, MD average score on Cognistat 4.67 CI -1.76 to 11.10, low quality evidence), social skills (1 RCT, n = 64, MD average score on social problem solving SPSI-R (Social Problem Solving Inventory - Revised) -2.30 CI -8.13 to 3.53, low quality evidence), or acceptability of intervention (2 RCTs, n = 92, RD 0.05 CI -0.09 to 0.19, low quality evidence). There were no data reported on mental state, insight, behaviour, quality of life, costs, service utilisation, or adverse effects. Satisfaction with treatment - measured using an un-referenced scale - and reported as "interest in training" was better for the virtual reality group (1 RCT, n = 64, MD 6.00 CI 1.39 to 10.61,low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear good quality evidence for or against using virtual reality for treatment compliance among people with serious mental illness. If virtual reality is used, the experimental nature of the intervention should be clearly explained. High-quality studies should be undertaken in this area to explore any effects of this novel intervention and variations of approach.

Perphenazine versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between the various first-generation antipsychotics, however, low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs are sometimes perceived as less efficacious than high-potency first-generation compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of high-potency, first-generation perphenazine compared with low-potency, first-generation antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (October 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perphenazine with first-generation, low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis and using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes four relevant randomised trials with 365 participants. The size of the included studies was between 42 and 158 participants with a study length between one and four months. Overall, the methods of sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. Most studies were rated as low risk of bias in terms of blinding. Overall, attrition bias in the studies was high.The effects of perphenazine and low-potency antipsychotic drugs seemed to be similar in terms of the primary outcome - response to treatment (perphenazine 58%, low-potency antipsychotics 59%, 2 RCTs, n = 138, RR 0.97 CI 0.74 to 1.26 - moderate quality of evidence). There was also no clear evidence of a difference in acceptability of treatment with the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason, however results were imprecise (perphenazine 30%, low-potency antipsychotics 28%, 3 RCTs, n = 323, RR 0.78 CI 0.35 to 1.76, very low quality of evidence).There were low numbers of studies available for the outcomes experiencing at least one adverse effect (perphenazine 33%, low-potency antipsychotics 47%, 2 RCTs, n = 165, RR 0.83 CI 0.36 to 1.95, low quality evidence) and experiencing at least one movement disorder (perphenazine 22%, low-potency first-generation antipsychotics 0%, 1 RCT, n = 69, RR 15.62 CI 0.94 to 260.49, low quality evidence), and the confidence intervals for the estimated effects did not exclude important differences. Akathisia was more frequent in the perphenazine group (perphenazine 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 22%, 2 RCTs, n = 227, RR 9.45 CI 1.69 to 52.88), whereas severe toxicity was less so (perphenazine 42%, low-potency antipsychotics 69%, 1 RCT, n = 96, RR 0.61 CI 0.41 to 0.89).There were three deaths in the low-potency group by four months but the difference between groups was not significant (perphenazine 0%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 1 RCT, n = 96, RR 0.14 CI 0.01 to 2.69, moderate quality evidence). No data were available for our prespecified outcomes of interest sedation or quality of life. Data were not available for other outcomes such as relapse, service use, costs and satisfaction with care.The event rates reported quote simple aggregates and are not based on the RRs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results do not show a superiority in efficacy of high-potency perphenazine compared with low-potency first-generation antipsychotics. There is some evidence that perphenazine is more likely to cause akathisia and less likely to cause severe toxicity, but most adverse effect results were equivocal. The number of studies as well as the quality of studies is low, with quality of evidence for the main outcomes ranging from moderate to very low, so more randomised evidence would be needed for conclusions to be made.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for panic disorder in adults

BACKGROUND

Panic disorder (PD) is a common type of anxiety disorder, characterized by unexpected and repeated panic attacks or fear of future panic attacks, or both. Individuals with PD are often resistant to pharmacological or psychological treatments and this can lead to the disorder becoming a chronic and disabling illness. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can deliver sustained and spatially selective current to suppress or induce cortical excitability, and its therapeutic effect on pathological neuronal activity in people with PD has already been examined in case studies and clinical trials. However, a systematic review is necessary to assess the efficacy and safety of rTMS for PD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for panic disorder (PD) in adults aged 18 to 65 years, either as a monotherapy or as an augmentation strategy.

SEARCH METHODS

An electronic search of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) was conducted to 19 February 2014. The CCDANCTR includes reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (all years). Additional searches were conducted in Psyndex and the main Chinese medical databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs or quasi-randomised trials evaluating rTMS for PD in people aged between 18 and 65 years, either as a monotherapy or as an augmentation strategy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data and verified the data by cross-checking. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. For binary data, we calculated fixed-effect model risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated fixed-effect model standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs (n = 40) were included in this review. The included trials compared rTMS with sham rTMS; no trials comparing rTMS with active treatments (electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy) met our inclusion criteria. Both included studies used 1 Hz rTMS over the right dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) for two or four weeks as an augmentation treatment for PD. However, in both studies the data for the primary outcome, panic symptoms as measured by the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS), were skewed and could not be pooled for a quantitative analysis. For this primary outcome one trial with 25 participants reported a superior effect of rTMS in reducing panic symptoms compared with sham rTMS (t = 3.04, df = 16.57, P = 0.007), but this trial had a 16% dropout rate and so was deemed as having a high risk of attrition bias. The other trial found that all 15 participants exhibited a reduction in panic symptoms but there was no significant difference between rTMS and sham rTMS (Mann Whitney U test, P > 0.05). Regarding the acceptability of rTMS, no significant difference was found between rTMS and sham rTMS in dropout rates or in reports of side effects. The quality of evidence contributing to this review was assessed as very low. Assessments of the risk of bias for the two studies were hampered by the lack of information provided in the reports, especially on methods of sequence generation and whether allocation concealment had been applied. Of the remaining sources of bias, we considered one of the studies to have been at risk of attrition bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only two RCTs of rTMS were available and their sample sizes were small. The available data were insufficient for us to draw any conclusions about the efficacy of rTMS for PD. Further trials with large sample sizes and adequate methodology are needed to confirm the effectiveness of rTMS for PD.

Antidepressant treatment for postnatal depression

BACKGROUND

Postnatal depression is a common disorder that can have adverse short- and long-term effects on maternal morbidity, the new infant and the family as a whole. Treatment is often largely by social support and psychological interventions. It is not known whether antidepressants are an effective and safe choice for treatment of this disorder. This review was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of different antidepressants and to compare their effectiveness with other forms of treatment, placebo or treatment as usual. It is an update of a review first published in 2001.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs in comparison with any other treatment (psychological, psychosocial or pharmacological), placebo or treatment as usual for postnatal depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialized Register (CCDANCTR) to 11 July 2014. This register contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE, (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We also searched international trial registries and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of women with depression with onset up to six months postpartum that compared antidepressant treatment (alone or in combination with another treatment) with any other treatment, placebo or treatment as usual.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the trial reports. We requested missing information from investigators wherever possible. We sought data to allow an intention-to-treat analysis. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool data where sufficient comparable studies were identified.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials with 596 participants in this review. All studies had a randomised controlled parallel group design, with two conducted in the UK, three in the US and one in Israel. Meta-analyses were performed to pool data on response and remission from studies comparing antidepressants with placebo. No meta-analyses could be conducted for other comparisons due to the small number of trials identified.Four studies compared selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with placebo (two using sertraline, one using paroxetine and one using fluoxetine; 233 participants in total). In two of these studies both the experimental and placebo groups also received psychological therapy. Pooled risk ratios based on data from three of these studies (146 participants) showed that women randomised to SSRIs had higher rates of response and remission than those randomised to placebo (response: RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.03; remission: RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.98); the fourth study did not report data on response or remission.One study (254 participants) compared antidepressant treatment with treatment as usual (for the first four weeks) followed by listening visits. The study found significantly higher rates of improvement in the antidepressant group than treatment-as-usual group after the first four weeks, but no difference between antidepressants and listening visits at the later follow-up. In addition, one study comparing sertraline with nortriptyline (a tricyclic antidepressant) found no difference in effectiveness (109 participants).Side effects were experienced by a substantial proportion of women, but there was no evidence of a meaningful difference in the number of adverse effects between treatment arms in any study. There were very limited data on adverse effects experienced by breastfed infants, with no long-term follow-up. All but one of the studies were assessed as being at high or uncertain risk of attrition bias and selective outcome reporting. In particular, one of the placebo-controlled studies had over 50% drop-out.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for this review was very limited, with a small number of studies and little information on a number of important outcomes, particularly regarding potential effects on the child. Risk of bias, for example from high attrition rates, as well as low representativeness of participants (e.g. exclusion of women with severe or chronic depression in several trials) also limit the conclusions that can be drawn.Pooled estimates for response and remission found that SSRIs were significantly more effective than placebo for women with postnatal depression. However the quality of evidence contributing to this comparison was assessed as very low owing to the small sample size for this comparison (146 participants from three studies), the risk of bias in included studes and the inclusion of one study where all participants in both study arms additionally received psychological therapy. There was insufficient evidence to conclude whether, and for whom, antidepressant or psychological/psychosocial treatments are more effective, or whether some antidepressants are more effective or better tolerated than others. There is also inadequate evidence on whether the benefits of antidepressants persist beyond eight weeks or whether they have short- or long-term adverse effects on breastfeeding infants.Professionals treating women with severe depression in the postnatal period will need to draw on other evidence, including trials among general adult populations and observational studies of antidepressant safety when breastfeeding (although the potential for confounding in non-randomised studies must be considered). More RCTs are needed with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up, including assessment of the impact on the child and safety of breastfeeding. Further larger-scale trials comparing antidepressants with alternative treatment modalities are also required.

Fluphenazine versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between any other antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects. This review examined the effects of the high-potency antipsychotic fluphenazine compared to those of low-potency antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes seven randomised trials and 1567 participants that compared fluphenazine with low-potency antipsychotic drugs. The size of the included studies was between 40 and 438 participants. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. Fluphenazine was not significantly different from low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of response to treatment (fluphenazine 55%, low-potency drug 55%, 2 RCTs, n = 105, RR 1.06 CI 0.75 to 1.50, moderate quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in acceptability of treatment with equivocal numbers of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (fluphenazine 36%, low-potency antipsychotics 36%, 6 RCTs, n = 1532, RR 1.00 CI 0.88 to 1.14, moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for numbers experiencing at least one adverse effect (fluphenazine 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 88%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.79 CI 0.58 to 1.07, moderate quality evidence). However, at least one movement disorder occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 10%, 3 RCTs, n = 971, RR 2.11 CI 1.41 to 3.15, low quality of evidence). In contrast, low-potency antipsychotics produced significantly more sedation (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 64%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.31 CI 0.13 to 0.77, high quality evidence). No data were available for the outcomes of death and quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in a number of subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Adverse effects such as akathisia (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 5 RCTs, n = 1209, RR 2.28 CI 1.58 to 3.28); dystonia (fluphenazine 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 4 RCTs, n = 1309, RR 2.66 CI 1.25 to 5.64); loss of associated movement (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 1 RCT, n = 338, RR 11.15 CI 3.95 to 31.47); rigor (fluphenazine 27%, low-potency antipsychotics 12%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.18 CI 1.20 to 3.97); and tremor (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.53 CI 1.37 to 4.68) occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group.For other adverse effects such as dizziness (fluphenazine 8%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.49 CI 0.32 to 0.73); drowsiness (fluphenazine 18%, low-potency antipsychotics 25%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.67 CI 0.53 to 0.86); dry mouth (fluphenazine 11%, low-potency antipsychotics 18%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.63 CI 0.45 to 0.89); nausea (fluphenazine 4%, low-potency antipsychotics 15%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.25 CI 0.14 to 0.45); and vomiting (fluphenazine 3%, low-potency antipsychotics 8%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.36 CI 0.18 to 0.72) results favoured fluphenazine with significantly more events occurring in the low-potency antipsychotic group for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results do not show a clear difference in efficacy between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics. The number of included studies was low and their quality moderate. Therefore, further studies would be needed to draw firm conclusions about the relative effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics.

Haloperidol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often clinically perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds, and they also seem to differ in their side-effects.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects in clinical response of haloperidol and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing haloperidol with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 17 randomised trials and 877 participants. The size of the included studies was between 16 and 109 participants. All studies were short-term with a study length between two and 12 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. We found no clear evidence that haloperidol was superior to low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of clinical response (haloperidol 40%, low-potency drug 36%, 14 RCTs, n = 574, RR 1.11, CI 0.86 to 1.44 lowquality evidence). There was also no clear evidence of benefit for either group in acceptability of treatment with equivocal difference in the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (haloperidol 13%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 11 RCTs, n = 408, RR 0.82, CI 0.38 to 1.77, low quality evidence). Similar equivocal results were found between groups for experiencing at least one adverse effect (haloperidol 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 35%, 5 RCTs n = 158, RR 1.97, CI 0.69 to 5.66, very low quality evidence ). More participants from the low-potency drug group experienced sedation (haloperidol 14%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 2 RCTs, n = 44, RR 0.30, CI 0.11 to 0.82, moderate quality evidence), orthostasis problems (haloperidol 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 71%, 1 RCT, n = 41, RR 0.35, CI 0.16 to 0.78) and weight gain (haloperidol 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 29%, 3 RCTs, n = 88, RR 0.22, CI 0.06 to 0.81). In contrast, the outcome 'at least one movement disorder' was more frequent in the haloperidol group (haloperidol 72%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 5 RCTs, n = 170, RR 1.64, CI 1.22 to 2.21, low quality evidence). No data were available for death or quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results do not clearly show a superiority in efficacy of haloperidol compared with low-potency antipsychotics. Differences in adverse events were found for movement disorders, which were more frequent in the haloperidol group, and orthostatic problems, sedation and weight gain, which were more frequent in the low-potency antipsychotic group. The quality of studies was low, and the quality of evidence for the main outcomes of interest varied from moderate to very low, so more newer studies would be needed in order to draw a definite conclusion about whether or not haloperidol is superior or inferior to low-potency antipsychotics.