Losing participants before the trial ends erodes credibility of findings

Trifluoperazine 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.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects in response to treatment of trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing trifluoperazine 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 involving 422 participants that compared trifluoperazine with low-potency antipsychotic drugs. The size of the included studies was between 20 and 157 participants with a study length between four and 52 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. Trifluoperazine was not significantly different from low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of response to treatment (trifluoperazine 26%, low-potency drug 27%, 3 RCTs, n = 120, RR 0.96 CI 0.59 to 1.56, moderate quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in acceptability of treatment with equivocal number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (trifluoperazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 16%, 3 RCTs, n = 239, RR 1.25, CI 0.72 to 2.17,low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in numbers with at least one adverse effect (trifluoperazine 60%, low-potency antipsychotics 38%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.60, CI 0.94 to 2.74, moderate quality evidence). However, at least one movement disorder was significantly more frequent in the trifluoperazine group (trifluoperazine 23%, low-potency antipsychotics 13%, 2 RCTs, n = 123, RR 2.08 CI 0.78 to 5.55, very low quality evidence) as well as incoordination (trifluoperazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 5%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 7.00, CI 1.60 to 30.66) and rigor (trifluoperazine 45%, low-potency antipsychotics 10%, 1 RCT, n = 60, RR 4.50, CI 1.58 to 12.84). No data were available for other outcomes of interest death, sedation and quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results did not show a difference in efficacy between trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics. Trifluoperazine produced more movement disorders. The number of randomised studies as well as their quality is low, the quality of evidence for outcomes of interest ranged from moderate to very low quality, so more, newer studies would be needed for conclusions about the relative effects of trifluoperazine and low-potency antipsychotics.

Information and communication technology based prompting for treatment compliance for people with serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

Non-compliance is a significant problem among people with serious mental disorders, presenting a challenge for mental health professionals. Prompts such as telephone calls, visits, and a posted referral letter to patients are currently used to encourage patient attendance at clinics and/or compliance with medication. More recently, the use of information and communication technology (ICT)-based prompting methods have increased. Methods include mobile text message (SMS - short message service), e-mail or use of any other electronic device with the stated purpose of encouraging compliance.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of ICT-based prompting to support treatment compliance in people with serious mental illness compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (31(st) May 2011 and 9(th) July 2012) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. Also, we inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Relevant randomised controlled trials involving adults with serious mental illness, comparing any ICT-based prompt or combination of prompts by automatic or semi-automatic system compared with standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors reliably assessed trial quality and extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups, again with 95% confidence intervals. A 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE was created, and we assessed included studies for risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 35 references, with 25 studies, but we could only include two studies with a total of 358 participants. The studies had a moderate risk of bias, and therefore risk overestimating any positive effects of ICT-based prompting. Both included studies compared semi-automatised ICT-based prompting intervention with standard care groups in mental health outpatient care. The interventions were SMS-message and an electronic assistant device. One included study reported our primary outcome, compliance.There was not any clear evidence that ICT-based prompts increase improvement in compliance (stop taking medication within six months n = 320, RR 1.11 CI 0.96 to 1.29, moderate quality evidence). There was some low quality evidence that ICT-based prompts have small effects for: mental state (average change in specific symptom scores within three months n = 251, MD -0.30 CI -0.53 to -0.07; severity of illness within three months n = 251, MD -0.10 CI -0.13 to -0.07 and six months n = 251, MD -0.10 CI -0.13 to -0.07; average change in depressive scores within six months n = 251, RR 0.00 CI -0.28 to 0.28; global symptoms within three months n = 251, MD -0.10 CI -0.38 to -0.07; negative symptoms within three months n = 251, MD -0.10 CI -0.38 to 0.18 and six months n = 251, MD -0.30 CI -0.58 to 0.02, low quality evidence). Level of insight improved more among people receiving ICT-based prompt compared with those in the control group at six months (n = 251, MD -0.10 CI -0.13 to -0.07). ICT-based prompts also increased quality of life (average change in quality of life within six months n = 251, RR 0.50 CI 0.19 to 0.81, moderate quality evidence).Based on the existing data, there is no evidence that either intervention is less acceptable than the other (n = 347, 2 RCTs, RR 1.46 CI 0.70 to 3.05, low quality evidence). Included studies did not report outcomes of service utilisation, behaviour, costs or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base on the effects of ICT-based prompts is still inconclusive. Data to clarify ICT-based prompting effects are awaited from an ongoing trial, but further well-conducted trials considering the different ICT-based prompts are warranted.

Flupenthixol decanoate (depot) for schizophrenia or other similar psychotic disorders

BACKGROUND

Long-acting depot injections of drugs such as flupenthixol decanoate are extensively used as a means of long-term maintenance treatment for schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of flupenthixol decanoate in comparison with placebo, oral antipsychotics and other depot neuroleptic preparations for people with schizophrenia and other severe mental illnesses, in terms of clinical, social and economic outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified relevant trials by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register in March 2009 and then for this update version, a search was run in April 2013. The register is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. References of all identified studies were inspected for further trials. We contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that focused on people with schizophrenia or other similar psychotic disorders where flupenthixol decanoate had been compared with placebo or other antipsychotic drugs were included. All clinically relevant outcomes were sought.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. For dichotomous data we estimated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. We summated normal continuous data using mean difference (MD), and 95% CIs using a fixed-effect model. We presented scale data only for those tools that had attained prespecified levels of quality. Using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) we created 'Summary of findings tables and assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 15 randomised controlled trials with 626 participants. No trials compared flupenthixol decanoate with placebo.One small study compared flupenthixol decanoate with an oral antipsychotic (penfluridol). Only two outcomes were reported with this single study, and it demonstrated no clear differences between the two preparations as regards leaving the study early (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 3.00, CI 0.33 to 27.23,very low quality evidence) and requiring anticholinergic medication (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.19, CI 0.77 to 1.83, very low quality evidence).Ten studies in total compared flupenthixol decanoate with other depot preparations, though not all studies reported on all outcomes of interest. There were no significant differences between depots for outcomes such as relapse at medium term (n = 221, 5 RCTs, RR 1.30, CI 0.87 to 1.93, low quality evidence), and no clinical improvement at short term (n = 36, 1 RCT, RR 0.67, CI 0.36 to 1.23, low quality evidence). There was no difference in numbers of participants leaving the study early at short/medium term (n = 161, 4 RCTs, RR 1.23, CI 0.76 to 1.99, low quality evidence) nor with numbers of people requiring anticholinergic medication at short/medium term (n = 102, 3 RCTs, RR 1.38, CI 0.75 to 2.25, low quality evidence).Three studies in total compared high doses (100 to 200 mg) of flupenthixol decanoate with the standard doses (˜40mg) per injection. Two trials found relapse at medium term (n = 18, 1 RCT, RR 1.00, CI 0.27 to 3.69, low quality evidence) to be similar between the groups. However people receiving a high dose had slightly more favourable medium term mental state results on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (n = 18, 1 RCT, MD -10.44, CI -18.70 to -2.18, low quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in the use of anticholinergic medications to deal with side effects at short term (2 RCTs n = 47, RR 1.12, CI 0.83 to 1.52 very low quality evidence). One trial comparing a very low dose of flupenthixol decanoate (˜6 mg) with a low dose (˜9 mg) per injection reported no difference in relapse rates (n = 59, 1 RCT, RR 0.34, CI 0.10 to 1.15, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the current state of evidence, there is nothing to choose between flupenthixol decanoate and other depot antipsychotics. From the data reported in clinical trials, it would be understandable to offer standard dose rather than the high dose depot flupenthixol as there is no difference in relapse. However, data reported are of low or very low quality and this review highlights the need for large, well-designed and reported randomised clinical trials to address the effects of flupenthixol decanoate.

Horticultural therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Horticultural therapy is defined as the process of utilising fruits, vegetables, flowers and plants facilitated by a trained therapist or healthcare provider, to achieve specific treatment goals or to simply improve a person's well-being. It can be used for therapy or rehabilitation programs for cognitive, physical, social, emotional, and recreational benefits, thus improving the person's body, mind and spirit. Between 5% to 15% of people with schizophrenia continue to experience symptoms in spite of medication, and may also develop undesirable adverse effects, horticultural therapy may be of value for these people.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of horticultural therapy for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses compared with standard care or other additional psychosocial interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (Janurary 2013) and supplemented this by contacting relevant study authors, and manually searching reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included one randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing horticultural therapy plus standard care with standard care alone for people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, quality assessed and extracted data. For continuous outcomes, we calculated a mean difference (MD) and for binary outcomes we calculated risk ratio (RR), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed risk of bias and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one single blind study (total n = 24). The overall risk of bias in the study was considered to be unclear although the randomisation was adequate. It compared a package of horticultural therapy which consisted of one hour per day of horticultural activity plus standard care with standard care alone over two weeks (10 consecutive days) with no long-term follow-up. Only two people were lost to follow-up in the study, both in the horticultural therapy group (1 RCT n = 24,RR 5.00 95% CI 0.27 to 94.34, very low quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI-C) change scores between groups, however confidence intervals were wide (1 RCT n = 22, MD -0.90 95% CI -10.35 to 8.55, very low quality evidence). At the end of treatment, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS21) change scores in horticultural therapy group were greater than that in the control group (1 RCT n = 22, MD -23.70 CI -35.37 to - 12.03, very low quality evidence). The only included study did not report on adverse effects of interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current very low quality data, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions on benefits or harms of horticultural therapy for people with schizophrenia. This therapy remains unproven and more and larger randomised trials are needed to increase high quality evidence in this area.

Pericyazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Pericyazine is a 3-cyano-10 (3-4'-hydroxypiperidinopropyl) phenothiazine. It is overall pharmacologically similar with chlorpromazine, though particularly sedating. Dopamine receptor subtype analysis has not been performed for pericyazine, but the drug appears to induce greater noradrenergic than dopaminergic blockade. Compared to chlorpromazine, pericyazine reportedly has more potent antiemetic, antiserotonin, and anticholinergic activity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects and safety of pericyazine in comparison with placebo, typical and atypical antipsychotic agents and standard care for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2013) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled trials focusing on pericyazine for schizophrenia and other types of schizophrenia-like psychoses (schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorders). We excluded quasi-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently from included papers by at least two review authors. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of homogeneous dichotomous data were calculated. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to judge quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We could only include five studies conducted between 1965 and 1980. Most of the included studies did not report details of randomisation, allocation concealment, details of blinding and we could not assess the impact of attrition due to poor reporting.For the primary outcome of Global state - not improved, the confidence interval was compatible with a small benefit and increased risk of not improving with pericyazine compared with typical antipsychotics (2 RCTs, n = 122, RR 1.24 CI 0.93 to 1.66, very low quality of evidence) or atypical antipsychotics (1 RCT, n = 93, RR 0.97 CI 0.67 to 1.42, very low quality of evidence).When compared with typical antipsychotics relapse was only experienced by one person taking pericyazine (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 2.59 CI 0.11 to 61.75, very low quality of evidence).Pericyazine was associated with more extrapyramidal side effects than typical antipsychotics (3 RCTs, n = 163, RR 0.52 CI 0.34 to 0.80, very low quality of evidence) and atypical antipsychotics (1 RCT, n = 93, RR 2.69 CI 1.35 to 5.36, very low quality of evidence).The estimated risk of leaving the study early for specific reasons was imprecise for the comparisons of pericyazine with typical antipsychotics (2 RCTs, n = 71, RR 0.46 CI 0.11 to 1.90, very low quality of evidence), and with atypical antipsychotics (1 RCT, n = 93, RR 0.13 CI 0.01 to 2.42, very low quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of very low quality evidence we are unable to determine the effects of pericyazine in comparison with typical or atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia. However, there is some evidence that pericyazine may be associated with a higher incidence of extrapyramidal side effects than other antipsychotics, and again this was judged to be very low quality evidence. Large, robust studies are still needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn.

Carbamazepine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with just antipsychotic drug treatment and various adjunct medications are used to promote additional response. The antiepileptic carbamazepine is one such drug.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses and whether carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine augmentation of neuroleptic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original version we searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials (December 2001), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), EMBASE (1980-2001), Biological Abstracts (1980-2001), PsycLIT (1886-2001) and PSYNDEX (1974-2001). For the most recent update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials in July 2012. We also inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies and authors for additional data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carbamazepine or compounds of the carbamazepine family with placebo or no intervention, whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizoaffective psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect, risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We assessed the risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The updated search did not reveal any further studies that met our inclusion criteria. The number of included studies therefore remains at 10 with the number of participants randomised still 283.One study comparing carbamazepine with placebo as the sole treatment for schizophrenia was abandoned early due to high relapse rate with 26 out of 31 participants relapsing by three months. No effect of carbamazepine was evident with no difference in relapse between the two groups (1 RCT n = 31, RR 1.07 CI 0.78 to 1.45). Another study compared carbamazepine with antipsychotics as the sole treatment for schizophrenia. No differences in terms of mental state were found when comparing 50% reduction in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores (1 RCT n = 38, RR 1.23 CI 0.78 to 1.92). A favourable effect for carbamazepine was found when more people who received the antipsychotic (perphenazine) had parkinsonism (1 RCT n = 38, RR 0.03 CI 0.00 to 0.043). Eight studies compared adjunctive carbamazepine versus adjunctive placebo, we were able use GRADE for quality of evidence for these results. Adding carbamazepine to antipsychotic treatment was as acceptable as adding placebo with no difference between the numbers leaving the study early from each group (8 RCTs n = 182, RR 0.47 CI 0.16 to 1.35, very low quality evidence). Carbamazepine augmentation was superior compared with antipsychotics alone in terms of overall global improvement, but participant numbers were low (2 RCTs n = 38, RR 0.57 CI 0.37 to 0.88). There were no differences for the mental state outcome of 50% reduction in BPRS scores (6 RCTs n = 147, RR 0.86 CI 0.67 to 1.12, low quality evidence). Less people in the carbamazepine augmentation group had movement disorders than those taking haloperidol alone (1 RCT n = 20, RR 0.38 CI 0.14 to 1.02). No data were available for the effects of carbamazepine on subgroups of people with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviour, negative symptoms or EEG abnormalities or with schizoaffective disorder.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on currently available randomised trial-derived evidence, carbamazepine cannot be recommended for routine clinical use for treatment or augmentation of antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenia. At present large, simple well-designed and reported trials are justified - especially if focusing on people with violent episodes and people with schizoaffective disorders or those with both schizophrenia and EEG abnormalities.

Sulpiride versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Sulpiride is a relatively old antipsychotic drug reputed to have a low incidence of adverse effects and an effect on the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. This relatively inexpensive antipsychotic drug has a similar neuropharmacological profile to several novel atypical drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of sulpiride for schizophrenia and other similar serious mental illnesses in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (September 2008) and references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information. We updated this search 7th November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sulpiride with placebo for people with schizophrenia and other types of schizophrenia-like psychoses. The primary outcome of interest was clinically significant response in global state.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality-assessed these. IMO and JW extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using a random-effects risk ratio (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. Where continuous data were included, we analysed these data using random-effects mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

No new trials were included from the 2012 search. The review still includes two trials of short duration comparing sulpiride with placebo (total n = 113). No study reported our primary outcome of interest of 'global state: clinically significant response', nor our secondary outcomes of interest of 'quality of life', 'severe adverse effects', and 'safety assessments'. As regards mental state, there were no clear differences between groups for either positive or negative symptoms; measured positive symptoms using the Manchester scale were skewed and therefore not included in meta-analysis (n = 18, 1 RCT, very low quality evidence). Measured negative symptoms using the Manchester scale also demonstrated no clear difference (n = 18, 1 RCT, MD -3.0 CI -1.66 to 1.06, very low quality evidence). Few people left these studies by three months (n = 113, 2 RCTs, RR 1.00 CI 0.25 to 4.00). One subscore finding demonstrated a significant improvement in social behaviour using the Current Behaviour Schedule (CBS) when receiving placebo (n = 18, 1 RCT, MD -2.90 CI -5.60 to -0.20). There were no data for many important outcomes such as global outcomes, service use or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sulpiride may be an effective antipsychotic drug but evidence of its superiority over placebo from randomised trials is very limited. Practice will have to use evidence from sources other than trials until better evidence is generated.

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) 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.

General physical health advice for people with serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

There is currently much focus on provision of general physical health advice to people with serious mental illness and there has been increasing pressure for services to take responsibility for providing this.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of general physical healthcare advice for people with serious mental illness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last update search October 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

All randomised clinical trials focusing on general physical health advice for people with serious mental illness..

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. 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 a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies are now included in this review. For the comparison of physical healthcare advice versus standard care we identified six studies (total n = 964) of limited quality. For measures of quality of life one trial found no difference (n = 54, 1 RCT, MD Lehman scale 0.20, CI -0.47 to 0.87, very low quality of evidence) but another two did for the Quality of Life Medical Outcomes Scale - mental component (n = 487, 2 RCTs, MD 3.70, CI 1.76 to 5.64). There was no difference between groups for the outcome of death (n = 487, 2 RCTs, RR 0.98, CI 0.27 to 3.56, low quality of evidence). For service use two studies presented favourable results for health advice, uptake of ill-health prevention services was significantly greater in the advice group (n = 363, 1 RCT, MD 36.90, CI 33.07 to 40.73) and service use: one or more primary care visit was significantly higher in the advice group (n = 80, 1 RCT, RR 1.77, CI 1.09 to 2.85). Economic data were equivocal. Attrition was large (> 30%) but similar for both groups (n = 964, 6 RCTs, RR 1.11, CI 0.92 to 1.35). Comparisons of one type of physical healthcare advice with another were grossly underpowered and equivocal.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

General physical health could lead to people with serious mental illness accessing more health services which, in turn, could mean they see longer-term benefits such as reduced mortality or morbidity. On the other hand, it is possible clinicians are expending much effort, time and financial resources on giving ineffective advice. The main results in this review are based on low or very low quality data. There is some limited and poor quality evidence that the provision of general physical healthcare advice can improve health-related quality of life in the mental component but not the physical component, but this evidence is based on data from one study only. This is an important area for good research reporting outcome of interest to carers and people with serious illnesses as well as researchers and fundholders.

Family intervention (brief) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Supportive, positive family environments have been shown to improve outcomes for patients with schizophrenia in contrast with family environments that express high levels of criticism, hostility, or over-involvement, which have poorer outcomes and have more frequent relapses. Forms of psychosocial intervention, designed to promote positive environments and reduce these levels of expressed emotions within families, are now widely used.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of brief family interventions for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2012), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials. We contacted authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised studies that compared brief family-oriented psychosocial interventions with standard care, focusing on families of people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were selected.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, we estimated a mean difference (MD) between groups and their 95% CIs. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence for main outcomes of interest and created a 'Summary of findings' table. We assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies randomising 163 people could be included in the review. It is not clear if brief family intervention reduces the utilisation of health services by patients, as most results are equivocal at long term and only one study reported data for the primary outcomes of interest of hospital admission (n = 30, 1 RCT, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.11, very low quality evidence). Data for relapse are also equivocal by medium term (n = 40, 1 RCT, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.43, low quality evidence). However, data for the family outcome of understanding of family member significantly favoured brief family intervention (n = 70, 1 RCT, MD 14.90, 95% CI 7.20 to 22.60, very low quality evidence). No study reported data for other outcomes of interest including days in hospital; adverse events; medication compliance; quality of life or satisfaction with care; or any economic outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review are not outstanding due to the size and quality of studies providing data; the analysed outcomes were also minimal, with no meta-analysis possible. All outcomes in the 'Summary of findings' table were rated low or very low quality evidence. However, the importance of brief family intervention should not be dismissed outright, with the present state of demand and resources available. The designs of such brief interventions could be modified to be more effective with larger studies, which may then have enough power to inform clinical practice.

Cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical equipoise regarding preventative treatments for psychosis has encouraged the development and evaluation of psychosocial treatments, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, examining the evidence for the effectiveness of CBT-informed treatment for preventing psychosis in people who are not taking antipsychotic medication, when compared to usual or non-specific control treatment. Included studies had to meet basic quality criteria, such as concealed and random allocation to treatment groups.

RESULTS

Our search produced 1940 titles, out of which we found seven completed trials (six published). The relative risk (RR) of developing psychosis was reduced by more than 50% for those receiving CBT at every time point [RR at 6 months 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.82, p = 0.008 (fixed-effects only: six randomized controlled trials (RCTs), n = 800); RR at 12 months 0.45, 95% CI 0.28-0.73, p = 0.001 (six RCTs, n = 800); RR at 18-24 months 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.72, p = 0.002 (four RCTs, n = 452)]. Heterogeneity was low in every analysis and the results were largely robust to the risk of an unpublished 12-month study having unfavourable results. CBT was also associated with reduced subthreshold symptoms at 12 months, but not at 6 or 18-24 months. No effects on functioning, symptom-related distress or quality of life were observed. CBT was not associated with increased rates of clinical depression or social anxiety (two studies).

CONCLUSIONS

CBT-informed treatment is associated with a reduced risk of transition to psychosis at 6, 12 and 18-24 months, and reduced symptoms at 12 months. Methodological limitations and recommendations for trial reporting are discussed.

Length of hospitalisation for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

In high-income countries, over the last three decades, the length of hospital stays for people with serious mental illness has reduced drastically although considerable variation remains. In lower-income countries this variation may be greater. Some argue that reduction in hospital stay leads to 'revolving door admissions' and worsening mental health outcomes despite apparent cost savings, whilst others suggest longer stays may be more harmful by institutionalising people to hospital care.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of short stay/brief admission hospital care with long stay/standard in-patient care in people with serious mental illness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials, July 2007 and updated this search in May 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing planned short/brief with long/standard hospital stays for people with serious mental illnesses.

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 using a fixed-effect model. For continuous data, had we identified such data, we planned to calculate fixed-effect mean differences (MD). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and rated quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six relevant trials undertaken between 1969 and 1980. We found no significant difference in death (n = 175, 1 RCT, RR in the longer term 0.42, CI 0.10 to 1.83, very low quality evidence). In the long term, there was no difference in improvement of mental state (n = 61, 1 RCT, RR 3.39, CI 0.76 to 15.02, very low quality evidence). There was no difference in readmission to hospital (n = 651, 4 RCTs, RR by the long term 1.26, CI 1.00 to 1.57, low quality evidence). Data for leaving the study prematurely by the longer term showed no difference (n = 229, 2 RCTs, (RR 0.77, CI 0.34 to 1.77, low quality evidence). There was a significant difference favouring short stay (P = 0.01) in numbers of participants with delayed discharge from hospital exceeding the time planned in study (n = 404, 3 RCTs, RR in the longer term 0.54, CI 0.33 to 0.88, low quality evidence). There was no difference in numbers of participants lost to follow-up (n = 404, 3 RCTs, RR by the longer term 1.07, CI 0.70 to 1.62, low quality evidence). Finally, there was a significant difference favouring short-stay hospitalisation for social functioning, including unemployment, unable to housekeep, or unknown employment status (n = 330, 2 RCTs, RR by longer term 0.61, CI 0.50 to 0.76, very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of hospital care and the length of stay is important for mental health policy. We found limited low and very low quality data which were all over 30 years old. Outcomes from these studies do suggest that a planned short-stay policy does not encourage a 'revolving door' pattern of admission and disjointed care for people with serious mental illness. More large, well-designed and reported trials are justified especially where a short-stay policy is not routine care.

Physical health care monitoring for people with serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

Current guidance suggests that we should monitor the physical health of people with serious mental illness, and there has been a significant financial investment over recent years to provide this.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical health monitoring, compared with standard care for people with serious mental illness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (October 2009, update in October 2012), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials focusing on physical health monitoring versus standard care, or comparing i) self monitoring versus monitoring by a healthcare professional; ii) simple versus complex monitoring; iii) specific versus non-specific checks; iv) once only versus regular checks; or v) different guidance materials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Initially, review authors (GT, AC, SM) independently screened the search results and identified three studies as possibly fulfilling the review's criteria. On examination, however, all three were subsequently excluded. Forty-two additional citations were identified in October 2012 and screened by two review authors (JX and MW), 11 of which underwent full screening.

MAIN RESULTS

No relevant randomised trials which assess the effectiveness of physical health monitoring in people with serious mental illness have been completed. We identified one ongoing study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is still no evidence from randomised trials to support or refute current guidance and practice. Guidance and practice are based on expert consensus, clinical experience and good intentions rather than high quality evidence.

Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care

BACKGROUND

A huge gap exists between the production of evidence and its take-up in clinical practice settings. To fill this gap, treatment guidelines, based on explicit assessments of the evidence base, are commonly employed in several fields of medicine, including schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders. It remains unclear, however, whether treatment guidelines have any impact on provider performance and patient outcomes, and how implementation should be conducted to maximise benefit.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to examine the efficacy of guideline implementation strategies in improving process outcomes (performance of healthcare providers) and patient outcomes. We additionally explored which components of different guideline implementation strategies can influence process and patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (March 2012), as well as references of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies that examined schizophrenia-spectrum disorders to compare guideline implementation strategies with usual care or to assess the comparative efficacy of different guideline implementation strategies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors worked independently and in duplicate to critically appraise records from 882 studies; five individual studies met the inclusion criteria and were considered. As critical appraisal of the five included studies revealed substantial heterogeneity in terms of focus of the guideline, target of the intervention, implementation strategy and outcome measures, meta-analysis was carried out for antipsychotic co-prescribing only.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the five included studies, practitioner impact was assessed in three. The five studies were generally at unclear risk of bias, and all evidence in the 'Summary of findings' table was graded by review authors as of very low quality. Meta-analysis of two studies revealed that a combination of several guideline dissemination and implementation strategies targeting healthcare professionals did not reduce antipsychotic co-prescribing in schizophrenia outpatients (two studies, n = 1,082, risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.23; corrected for cluster design: n = 310, RR 0.97, CI 0.75 to 1.25). One trial, which studied a nurse-led intervention aimed at promoting cardiovascular disease screening, found a significant effect in terms of the proportion of people receiving screening (blood pressure: n = 96, RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.28; cholesterol: n = 103, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70; glucose: n = 103, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.82; BMI: n = 99, RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.60; smoking status: n = 96, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.64; Framingham score: n = 110, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.87), although in the analysis corrected for cluster design, the effect was statistically significant for blood pressure and cholesterol only (blood pressure, corrected for cluster design: n = 33, RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.74; cholesterol, corrected for cluster design: n = 35, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99; glucose, corrected for cluster design: n = 35, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.21; BMI, corrected for cluster design: n = 34, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; smoking status, corrected for cluster design: n = 32, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.03; Framingham score, corrected for cluster design: n = 38, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.03; very low quality). Regarding participant outcomes, one trial assessed the efficacy of a shared decision-making implementation strategy and found no impact in terms of psychopathology, satisfaction with care and drug attitude. Another single trial studied a multifaceted intervention to promote medication adherence and found no impact in terms of adherence rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With only five studies meeting inclusion criteria, and with limited low or very low quality usable information, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. The preliminary pattern of evidence suggests that, although small changes in psychiatric practice have been demonstrated, uncertainty remains in terms of clinically meaningful and sustainable effects of treatment guidelines on patient outcomes and how best to implement such guidelines for maximal benefit.

Perazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Perazine is an old phenothiazine derivative used for the treatment of people with schizophrenia and is reputed to have a low level of extrapyramidal adverse effects. As far as we are aware, its use is limited to Germany, Poland, the former Yugoslavia and the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of perazine for those with schizophrenia or related psychoses in comparison with placebo, no treatment or other antipsychotic medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the bibliographic databases Biological Abstracts, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT, LILACS, PSYNDEX, Sociological Abstracts and Sociofile. We searched the references of all included studies for further trials. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials. We updated this search on 16th July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials that compared perazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors (SL, BH, BHe) independently inspected the citations and where possible abstracts and ordered papers for re-inspection and quality assessment. We independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We inspected all data for heterogeneity, assessed trials for risk of bias and created summary of findings tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The review now includes seven trials with a total of 479 participants. In only one trial, with 95 participants, perazine appeared superior to 'active placebo' (trimipramine) at five weeks for the outcome of 'no important global improvement' (n = 95, RR 0.43 CI 0.2 to 0.8, low quality evidence), but there was no statistically significant difference in most measures of mental state. Perazine did not induce more general adverse events than placebo but more participants received at least one dose of antiparkinson medication (n = 95, RR 4.50 CI 1.0 to 19.5, very low quality evidence).Six small trials comparing perazine with other antipsychotics, including 384 participants in total, were incompletely reported and the outcomes were presented in various ways so that meta-analysis was not possible on most occasions. In the six studies, a similar number of participants receiving perazine or comparator antipsychotics (amisulpride, haloperidol, olanzapine, ziprasidone, zotepine) left the studies early (n = 384, RR 0.97 CI 0.68 to 1.38, low quality evidence). The results on efficacy could not be meta-analysed because the authors presented their results in very different ways. No obvious differences in adverse events between perazine and other antipsychotics could be derived from the limited data. Two haloperidol comparisons did not present extrapyramidal side-effects in a way that was suitable for use in meta-analysis, but three small comparisons with the second-generation antipsychotics zotepine and amisulpride showed no higher risk of akathisia (n = 111, RR 0.31 CI 0.1 to 1.1), dyskinesia (n = 111, RR 0.47 CI 0.1 to 3.5), parkinsonism (n = 81, RR 1.21 CI 0.5 2.8) or tremor (n = 40, RR 0.80 CI 0.3 to 2.6) with perazine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The number, size and reporting of randomised controlled perazine trials are insufficient to present firm conclusions about the properties of this antipsychotic. It is possible that perazine is associated with a similar risk of extrapyramidal side-effects as some atypical antipsychotics but this is based on small comparisons. This should be clarified in larger, well-designed trials.

Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Trifluoperazine is a long-established high potency typical antipsychotic drug used in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses.

OBJECTIVES

To determine absolute effects of trifluoperazine for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses compared with placebo.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, cost and economic evaluation of trifluoperazine compared with placebo for schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (July 2012), supplemented with handsearching, reference searching, personal communication and contact with industry. Two review authors undertook a search for economic studies using the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Health Economic Database (CSzGHED) on the 9th April 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All available clinical randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses that compare trifluoperazine with placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies for the effects of interventions were reliably selected by a review team and data were doubly independently extracted to reduce bias. We only used dichotomous data, using intention-to-treat analysis when possible. Data were estimated using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A 'Summary of findings' table was produced, where possible, for each primary outcome using GRADE. Economic studies were searched and reliably selected by review authors (VF and SS) to provide an economic summary of available data. Where no relevant economic studies were eligible for inclusion, the economic review team valued the already-included effectiveness outcome data to provide a rudimentary economic summary.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 10 studies with a total number of 686 participants featuring in 20 different outcomes of interest. Overall, there was significant clinical improvement in clinical global state at medium term amongst people receiving trifluoperazine (3 RCTs, n = 417, RR 4.61, CI 1.54 to 13.84, low quality evidence) and significantly fewer people receiving trifluoperazine left the studies early due to relapse or worsening at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 381, RR 0.34, CI 0.23 to 0.49, low quality evidence). However, results were equivocal for leaving the study early at medium term for any reason (2 RCTs, n = 391, RR 0.80, CI 0.17 to 3.81, very low quality evidence) and due to severe adverse effects (2 RCTs, n = 391, RR 1.54, CI 0.56 to 4.24, very low quality evidence). Equivocal data were also found for intensified symptoms at medium term (2 RCTs, n = 80, RR 1.05, CI 0.54 to 2.05, very low quality evidence) and rates of agitation or distress again at medium term (1 RCT, n = 52, RR 2.00, CI 0.19 to 20.72, very low quality evidence). Comparison between low and high-dose trifluoperazine with placebo from a single study provided equivocal evidence of effects. For economic outcomes, we valued outcomes in GBP terms and presented them in additional tables; there was an estimated saving of £3488.3 in favour of trifluoperazine. However, numerous assumptions were made and these savings need to be interpreted in light of those assumptions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results agree with existing evidence that compared to placebo, trifluoperazine is an effective antipsychotic for people with schizophrenia. Furthermore, our review provides supportive evidence that trifluoperazine increases the risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects. Although the effect sizes against placebo are similar to those observed with other agents, they are based on data from many small, pre-CONSORT trials with generally either a low or very low GRADE evidence that has limited implication for clinical practice. Large, independent trials are needed that adhere to the CONSORT statement to compare trifluoperazine with placebo used in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses.

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine, formulated in the 1950s, remains a benchmark treatment for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of chlorpromazine compared with placebo, for the treatment of schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (15 May 2012). We also searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chlorpromazine with placebo for people with schizophrenia and non-affective serious/chronic mental illness irrespective of mode of diagnosis. Primary outcomes of interest were death, violent behaviours, overall improvement, relapse and satisfaction with care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed these. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. We excluded continuous data if more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. Where continuous data were included, we analysed this data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval. We used a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We inspected over 1100 electronic records. The review currently includes 315 excluded studies and 55 included studies. The quality of the evidence is very low. We found chlorpromazine reduced the number of participants experiencing a relapse compared with placebo during six months to two years follow-up (n = 512, 3 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.47 to 0.90), but data were heterogeneous. No difference was found in relapse rates in the short, medium or long term over two years, although data were also heterogeneous. We found chlorpromazine provided a global improvement in a person's symptoms and functioning (n = 1164, 14 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.58 to 0.86). Fewer people allocated to chlorpromazine left trials early ( n = 1831, 27 RCTs, RR 0.64 CI 0.53 to 0.78) compared with placebo. There are many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is clearly sedating (n = 1627, 23 RCTs, RR 2.79 CI 2.25 to 3.45), it increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders (n = 942, 5 RCTs, RR 3.47 CI 1.50 to 8.03) and parkinsonism (n = 1468, 15 RCTs, RR 2.11 CI 1.59 to 2.80). Akathisia did not occur more often in the chlorpromazine group than placebo. Chlorpromazine clearly causes a lowering of blood pressure with accompanying dizziness (n = 1488, 18 RCTs, RR 2.38 CI 1.74 to 3.25) and considerable weight gain (n = 165, 5 RCTs, RR 4.92 CI 2.32 to 10.43).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know but aim to provide quantification to support clinical impression. Chlorpromazine's global position as a 'benchmark' treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the findings of this review. Chlorpromazine, in common use for half a century, is a well-established but imperfect treatment. Judicious use of this best available evidence should lead to improved evidence-based decision making by clinicians, carers and patients.

Aripiprazole versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In most western industrialised countries, second generation (atypical) antipsychotics are recommended as first-line drug treatments for people with schizophrenia. In this review, we specifically examine how the efficacy and tolerability of one such agent - aripiprazole - differs from that of other comparable second generation antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of aripiprazole compared with other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2012), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing aripiprazole (oral) with oral and parenteral forms of amisulpride, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone or zotepine 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 based on a random-effects model. Where possible, we calculated illustrative comparative risks for primary outcomes. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and used GRADE approach to rate quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We now have included 174 trials involving 17,244 participants. Aripiprazole was compared with clozapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone and olanzapine. The overall number of participants leaving studies early was 30% to 40%, limiting validity (no differences between groups).When compared with clozapine, there were no significant differences for global state (no clinically significant response, n = 2132, 29 RCTs, low quality evidence); mental state (BPRS, n = 426, 5 RCTs, very low quality evidence); or leaving the study early for any reason (n = 240, 3 RCTs, very low quality evidence). Quality of life score using the WHO-QOL-100 scale demonstrated significant difference, favouring aripiprazole (n = 132, 2 RCTs, RR 2.59 CI 1.43 to 3.74, very low quality evidence). General extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) were no different between groups (n = 520, 8 RCTs,very low quality evidence). No study reported general functioning or service use.When compared with quetiapine, there were no significant differences for global state (n = 991, 12 RCTs, low quality evidence); mental state (PANSS positive symptoms, n = 583, 7 RCTs, very low quality evidence); leaving the study early for any reason (n = 168, 2 RCTs, very low quality evidence), or general EPS symptoms (n = 348, 4 RCTs, very low quality evidence). Results were significantly in favour of aripiprazole for quality of life (WHO-QOL-100 total score, n = 100, 1 RCT, MD 2.60 CI 1.31 to 3.89, very low quality evidence). No study reported general functioning or service use.When compared with risperidone, there were no significant differences for global state (n = 6381, 80 RCTs, low quality evidence); or leaving the study early for any reason (n = 1239, 12 RCTs, very low quality evidence). Data were significantly in favour of aripiprazole for improvement in mental state using the BPRS (n = 570, 5 RCTs, MD 1.33 CI 2.24 to 0.42, very low quality evidence); with higher adverse effects seen in participants receiving risperidone of general EPS symptoms (n = 2605, 31 RCTs, RR 0.39 CI 0.31 to 0.50, low quality evidence). No study reported general functioning, quality of life or service use.When compared with ziprasidone, there were no significant differences for global state (n = 442, 6 RCTs, very low quality evidence); mental state using the BPRS (n = 247, 1 RCT, very low quality evidence); or leaving the study early for any reason (n = 316, 2 RCTs, very low quality evidence). Weight gain was significantly greater in people receiving aripiprazole (n = 232, 3 RCTs, RR 4.01 CI 1.10 to 14.60, very low quality evidence). No study reported general functioning, quality of life or service use.When compared with olanzapine, there were no significant differences for global state (n = 1739, 11 RCTs, very low quality evidence); mental state using PANSS (n = 1500, 11 RCTs, very low quality evidence); or quality of life using the GQOLI-74 scale (n = 68, 1 RCT, very low quality of evidence). Significantly more people receiving aripiprazole left the study early due to any reason (n = 2331, 9 RCTs, RR 1.15 CI 1.05 to 1.25, low quality evidence) and significantly more people receiving olanzapine gained weight (n = 1538, 9 RCTs, RR 0.25 CI 0.15 to 0.43, very low quality evidence). None of the included studies provided outcome data for the comparisons of 'service use' or 'general functioning'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information on all comparisons is of limited quality, is incomplete and problematic to apply clinically. The quality of the evidence is all low or very low. Aripiprazole is an antipsychotic drug with an important adverse effect profile. Long-term data are sparse and there is considerable scope for another update of this review as new data emerge from ongoing larger, independent pragmatic trials.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of CCT for people with SMI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register and Science Citation Index (2003, 2008, and 2012). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary. We further updated this search on the 8 November 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another pre-existing form of compulsory community treatment such as supervised discharge.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat statistic (NNT). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table for outcomes we rated as important and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

All studies (n=3) involved patients in community settings who were followed up over 12 months (n = 752 participants).Two RCTs from the USA (total n = 416) compared court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) with voluntary community treatment. OPC did not result in significant differences compared to voluntary treatment in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.21, low grade evidence); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52, low grade evidence); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15, low grade evidence) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89, low grade evidence). However, risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50 CI 0.31 to 0.80). Other than perceived coercion, no adverse outcomes were reported. In terms of numbers needed to treat (NNT), it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest. The NNT for the reduction of victimisation was lower at six (CI 6 to 6.5).One further RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive supervised discharge in England and found no difference between the two for either the main outcome of readmission (1 RCT, n = 333, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.99 CI 0.74 to 1.32, medium grade evidence), or any of the secondary outcomes including social functioning and mental state. It was not possible to calculate the NNT. The English study met three out of the seven criteria of The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, the others only one, the majority being rated unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CCT results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard voluntary care. People receiving CCT were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Short periods of conditional leave may be as effective (or non-effective) as formal compulsory treatment in the community. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this legislation is introduced. However, conclusions are based on three relatively small trials, with high or unclear risk of blinding bias, and evidence we rated as low to medium quality.

Anticholinergic medication for non-clozapine neuroleptic-induced hypersalivation in people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Treatment of schizophrenia depends heavily on neuroleptic drugs. Hypersalivation is a common side effect when people with schizophrenia are treated with neuroleptic drugs. Hypersalivation can be an embarrassing and stigmatising problem, can affect quality of life and can result in discontinuation of neuroleptic treatment. It can also be difficult to treat.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the best available evidence of the effects of anticholinergic drugs in the treatment of non-clozapine neuroleptic-induced hypersalivation in people with schizophrenia. Clozapine-induced hypersalivation has been addressed in another Cochrane review.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (15 November 2012) and inspected references of all identified studies for further relevant studies. We were to contact the first author of each included study for information regarding unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing an anticholinergic drug with placebo, no treatment, another anticholinergic drug or any other intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We inspected the results of the search to identify relevant studies. We were to extract data onto standard, simple forms. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. The risk of bias was to be assessed using the Cochrane risk assessment tool. For binary outcomes, we were to calculate a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we were to estimate the mean difference between groups.

MAIN RESULTS

The search resulted in four potential studies; after inspection, all were excluded. Three studies were excluded because they involved people with clozapine-induced hypersalivation - a topic covered in another Cochrane review. The fourth study was excluded because it involved people with schizophrenia, mood disorders or other mental disorders who were suffering from clozapine- and non-clozapine induced hypersalivation and were treated with Chinese medicines with unknown anticholinergic properties. People in the control group received an anticholinergic drug (artane) or an antihistamine (phenergan). It was not possible to separate clozapine- from non-clozapine-treated people in the intervention group, or to separate artane-treated people from phenergan-treated people in the control group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have been unable to locate any studies addressing the question raised in this review. Accordingly, this empty review points out an important clinical problem that needs to be investigated via well-designed and well-conducted randomised trials. Clinicians and patients are likely to continue with their current dependence on clinical judgement and personal experience. Policy makers have no trial-based evidence upon which to base guidelines for the treatment of hypersalivation induced by neuroleptics other than clozapine. They are likely to continue to rely on opinion and habit when making recommendations. Funders of studies may wish to make this important subgroup of people a priority in future research.

Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol was developed in the late 1950s for use in the field of anaesthesia. Research subsequently demonstrated effects on hallucinations, delusions, aggressiveness, impulsiveness and states of excitement and led to the introduction of haloperidol as an antipsychotic.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects of haloperidol for the management of schizophrenia and other similar serious mental illnesses compared with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

Initially, we electronically searched the databases of Biological Abstracts (1985-1998), CINAHL (1982-1998), The Cochrane Library (1998, Issue 4), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 1998), EMBASE (1980-1998), MEDLINE (1966-1998), PsycLIT (1974-1998), and SCISEARCH. We also checked references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted the authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies for further information and archive material.For the 2012 update, on 15 May 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials comparing the use of haloperidol (any oral dose) with placebo for those with schizophrenia or other similar serious, non-affective psychotic illnesses (however diagnosed). Our main outcomes of interest were death, loss to follow-up, clinical and social response, relapse and severity of adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We evaluated data independently and extracted, re-inspected and quality assessed the data. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and calculated their 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We excluded continuous data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50% and inspected data for heterogeneity. We used a fixed-effect model for all analyses. For the 2012 update, we assessed risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials randomising 4651 people are now included in this review. We chose seven main outcomes of interest for the 'Summary of findings' table. More people allocated haloperidol improved in the first six weeks of treatment than those given placebo (4 RCTs n = 472, RR 0.67 CI 0.56 to 0.80, moderate quality evidence). A further eight trials also found a difference favouring haloperidol across the six weeks to six months period (8 RCTs n = 307 RR 0.67 CI 0.58 to 0.78, moderate quality evidence). Relapse data from two trials favoured haloperidol at < 52 weeks but the evidence was very low quality (2 RCTs n = 70, RR 0.69 CI 0.55 to 0.86). Moderate quality evidence showed about half of those entering studies failed to complete the short trials (six weeks to six months), although, at up to six weeks, 16 studies found a difference that marginally favoured haloperidol (n = 1812, RR 0.87 CI 0.80 to 0.95). Adverse effect data does, nevertheless, support clinical impression that haloperidol is a potent cause of movement disorders, at least in the short term. Moderate quality evidence indicates that haloperidol caused parkinsonism (5 RCTs n = 485, RR 5.48 CI 2.68 to 11.22), akathisia (6 RCTs n = 695, RR 3.66 CI 2.24 to 5.97, and acute dystonia (5 RCTs n = 471, RR 11.49 CI 3.23 to 10.85). Discharge from hospital was equivocal between groups (1 RCT n = 33, RR 0.85 CI 0.47 to 1.52, very low quality evidence). Data were not reported for death and patient satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol is a potent antipsychotic drug but has a high propensity to cause adverse effects. Where there is no treatment option, use of haloperidol to counter the damaging and potentially dangerous consequences of untreated schizophrenia is justified. However, where a choice of drug is available, people with schizophrenia and clinicians may wish to prescribe an alternative antipsychotic with less likelihood of adverse effects such as parkinsonism, akathisia and acute dystonias. Haloperidol should be less favoured as a control drug for randomised trials of new antipsychotics.

Pimozide for schizophrenia or related psychoses

BACKGROUND

Pimozide, formulated in the 1960s, continues to be marketed for the care of people with schizophrenia or related psychoses such as delusional disorder. It has been associated with cardiotoxicity and sudden unexplained death. Electrocardiogram monitoring is now required before and during use.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of pimozide for people with schizophrenia or related psychoses in comparison with placebo, no treatment or other antipsychotic medication.A secondary objective was to examine the effects of pimozide for people with delusional disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (28 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing pimozide with other treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we inspected citations, ordered papers and then re-inspected and assessed the quality of the studies and of extracted data. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence interval (CI) and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. 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 included 32 studies in total: Among the five studies that compared pimozide versus placebo, only one study provided data for global state relapse, for which no difference between groups was noted at medium term (1 RCT n = 20, RR 0.22 CI 0.03 to 1.78, very low quality of evidence). None of the five studies provided data for no improvement or first-rank symptoms in mental state. Data for extrapyramidal symptoms demonstrate no difference between groups for Parkinsonism (rigidity) at short term (1 RCT, n = 19, RR 5.50 CI 0.30 to 101.28, very low quality of evidence) or at medium term (1 RCT n = 25, RR 1.33 CI 0.14 to 12.82, very low quality of evidence), or for Parkinsonism (tremor) at medium term (1 RCT n = 25, RR 1 CI 0.2 to 4.95, very low quality of evidence). No data were reported for quality of life at medium term.Of the 26 studies comparing pimozide versus any antipsychotic, seven studies provided data for global state relapse at medium term, for which no difference was noted (7 RCTs n = 227, RR 0.82 CI 0.57 to 1.17, moderate quality of evidence). Data from one study demonstrated no difference in mental state (no improvement) at medium term (1 RCT n = 23, RR 1.09 CI 0.08 to 15.41, very low quality evidence); another study demonstrated no difference in the presence of first-rank symptoms at medium term (1 RCT n = 44, RR 0.53 CI 0.25 to 1.11, low quality of evidence). Data for extrapyramidal symptoms demonstrate no difference between groups for Parkinsonism (rigidity) at short term (6 RCTs n = 186, RR 1.21 CI 0.71 to 2.05,low quality of evidence) or medium term (5 RCTs n = 219, RR 1.12 CI 0.24 to 5.25,low quality of evidence), or for Parkinsonism (tremor) at medium term (4 RCTs n = 174, RR 1.46 CI 0.68 to 3.11, very low quality of evidence). No data were reported for quality of life at medium term.In the one study that compared pimozide plus any antipsychotic versus the same antipsychotic, significantly fewer relapses were noted in the augmented pimozide group at medium term (1 RCT n = 69, RR 0.28 CI 0.15 to 0.50, low quality evidence). No data were reported for mental state outcomes or for extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Data were skewed for quality of life scores, which were not included in the meta-analysis but were presented separately.Two studies compared pimozide plus any antipsychotics versus antipsychotic plus placebo; neither study reported data for outcomes of interest, apart from Parkinsonism at medium term and quality of life using the Specific Level of Functioning scale (SLOF); however, data were skewed.Only one study compared pimozide plus any antipsychotic versus antipsychotics plus antipsychotic; no data were reported for global state and mental state outcomes of interest. Data were provided for Parkinsonism (rigidity and tremor) using the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS); however, these data were skewed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although shortcomings in the data are evident, enough overall consistency over different outcomes and time scales is present to confirm that pimozide is a drug with efficacy similar to that of other, more commonly used antipsychotic drugs such as chlorpromazine for people with schizophrenia. No data support or refute its use for those with delusional disorder.

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention, which typically consists of a number of components. The intervention aims to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care for people with SMI who are living in the community. The primary outcome of interest was psychiatric admissions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialised register in April 2011. The register is compiled from systematic searches of major databases, handsearches of relevant journals and conference proceedings. We also contacted 51 experts in the field of SMI and collaborative care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) described as collaborative care by the trialists comparing any form of collaborative care with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI, defined as schizophrenia or other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis (e.g. schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorders), bipolar affective disorder or other types of psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors worked independently to extract and quality assess data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous data. Risk of bias was assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one RCT (306 participants; US veterans with bipolar disorder I or II) in this review. We did not find any trials meeting our inclusion criteria that included people with schizophrenia. The trial provided data for one comparison: collaborative care versus standard care. All results are 'low or very low quality evidence'.Data indicated that collaborative care reduced psychiatric admissions at year two in comparison to standard care (n = 306, 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99).The sensitivity analysis showed that the proportion of participants psychiatrically hospitalised was lower in the intervention group than the standard care group in year three: 28% compared to 38% (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99).In comparison to the standard care group, collaborative care significantly improved the Mental Health Component (MHC) of quality of life at the three-year follow-up, (n = 306, 1 RCT, MD 3.50, 95% CI 1.80 to 5.20). The Physical Health Component (PHC) of the quality of life measure at the three-year follow-up did not differ significantly between groups (n = 306, 1 RCT, MD 0.50, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.91).Direct intervention (all-treatment) costs of collaborative care at the three-year follow-up did not differ significantly from standard care (n = 306, 1 RCT, MD -$2981.00, 95% CI $16934.93 to $10972.93). The proportion of participants leaving the study early did not differ significantly between groups (n = 306, 1 RCT, RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.79). There is no trial-based information regarding the effect of collaborative care for people with schizophrenia.No statistically significant differences were found between groups for number of deaths by suicide at three years (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32), or the number of participants that died from all other causes at three years (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.66).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review did not identify any studies relevant to care of people with schizophrenia and hence there is no evidence available to determine if collaborative care is effective for people suffering from schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorders. There was however one trial at high risk of bias that suggests that collaborative care for US veterans with bipolar disorder may reduce psychiatric admissions at two years and improves quality of life (mental health component) at three years, however, on its own it is not sufficient for us to make any recommendations regarding its effectiveness. More large, well designed, conducted and reported trials are required before any clinical or policy making decisions can be made.

Atypical antipsychotics for psychosis in adolescents

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia often presents in adolescence, but current treatment guidelines are based largely on studies of adults with psychosis. Over the past decade, the number of studies on treatment of adolescent-onset psychosis has increased. The current systematic review collates and critiques evidence obtained on the use of various atypical antipsychotic medications for adolescents with psychosis.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of atypical antipsychotic medications in adolescents with psychosis. We reviewed in separate analyses various comparisons of atypical antipsychotic medications with placebo or a typical antipsychotic medication or another atypical antipsychotic medication or the same atypical antipsychotic medication but at a lower dose.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (October 2011), which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected references of all identified studies and contacted study authors and relevant pharmaceutical companies to ask for more information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared atypical antipsychotic medication with placebo or another pharmacological intervention or with psychosocial interventions, standard psychiatric treatment or no intervention in children and young people aged 13 to 18 years with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, acute and transient psychoses or unspecified psychosis. We included studies published in English and in other languages that were available in standardised databases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors AK and SSD selected the studies, rated the quality of the studies and performed data extraction. For dichotomous data, we estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed-effect model. When possible, for binary data presented in the 'Summary of findings' table, we calculated illustrative comparative risks. We summated continuous data using the mean difference (MD). Risk of bias was assessed for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs, with a total of 1112 participants. We found no data on service utilisation, economic outcomes, behaviour or cognitive response. Trials were classified into the following groups. 1. Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo: Only two studies compared one atypical antipsychotic medication with placebo. In one study, the number of non-responders treated with olanzapine was not different from the number treated with placebo (1 RCT, n = 107, RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.10); however, significantly more (57% vs 32%) people left the study early (1 RCT, n = 107, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87) from the placebo group compared with the olanzapine group. With regard to adverse effects, young people treated with aripiprazole had significantly lower serum cholesterol compared with those given placebo (1 RCT, n = 302, RR 3.77, 95% CI 1.88 to 7.58). 2. Atypical antipsychotics versus typical antipsychotics: When the findings of all five trials comparing atypical antipsychotic medications with a typical antipsychotic medication were collated, no difference in the mean end point Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score was noted between the two arms (5 RCTs, n = 236, MD -1.08, 95% CI -3.08 to 0.93). With regard to adverse effects, the mean end point serum prolactin concentration was much higher than the reference range for treatment with risperidone, olanzapine and molindone in one of the studies. However, fewer adolescents who were receiving atypical antipsychotic medications left the study because of adverse effects (3 RCTs, n = 187, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.15) or for any reason (3 RCTs, n = 187, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.97).3. One atypical antipsychotic versus another atypical antipsychotic: The mean end point BPRS score was not significantly different for people who received risperidone compared with those who received olanzapine; however, the above data were highly skewed. Overall no difference was noted in the number of people leaving the studies early because of any adverse effects between each study arm in the three studies comparing olanzapine and risperidone (3 RCTs, n = 130, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.04). Specific adverse events were not reported uniformly across the six different studies included in this section of the review; therefore it was difficult to do a head-to-head comparison of adverse events for different atypical antipsychotic medications.4. Lower-dose atypical antipsychotic versus standard/higher-dose atypical antipsychotic: Three studies reported comparisons of lower doses of the atypical antipsychotic medication with standard/higher doses of the same medication. One study reported better symptom reduction with a standard dose of risperidone as compared with a low dose (1 RCT, n = 257, RR -8.00, 95% CI -13.75 to -2.25). In another study, no difference was reported in the number of participants not achieving remission between the group receiving 10 mg/d and those who received 30 mg/d of aripiprazole (1 RCT, n = 196, RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.48). Similarly in the other study, authors reported no statistically significant difference in clinical response between the two groups receiving lower-dose (80 mg/d) and higher-dose (160 mg/d) ziprasidone, as reflected by the mean end point BPRS score (1 RCT, n = 17, MD -4.40, 95% CI -19.20 to 10.40).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No convincing evidence suggests that atypical antipsychotic medications are superior to typical medications for the treatment of adolescents with psychosis. However, atypical antipsychotic medications may be more acceptable to young people because fewer symptomatic adverse effects are seen in the short term. Little evidence is available to support the superiority of one atypical antipsychotic medication over another, but side effect profiles are different for different medications. Treatment with olanzapine, risperidone and clozapine is often associated with weight gain. Aripiprazole is not associated with increased prolactin or with dyslipidaemia. Adolescents may respond better to standard-dose as opposed to lower-dose risperidone, but for aripiprazole and ziprasidone, lower doses may be equally effective. Future trials should ensure uniform ways of reporting.

User-held personalised information for routine care of people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

It is important to seek cost-effective methods of improving the care and outcome of those with serious mental illnesses. User-held records, where the person with the illness holds all or some personal information relating to the course and care of their illness, are now the norm in some clinical settings. Their value for those with severe mental illnesses is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of personalised, accessible, user-held clinical information for people with a severe mental illness (defined as psychotic illnesses).

SEARCH METHODS

We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register in August 2011. This register is compiled by systematic searches of major databases, and handsearches of journals and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that:i. have recruited adult participants with a diagnosis of a severe mental illness (specifically psychotic illnesses and severe mood disorders such as bipolar and depression with psychotic features); andii. compared any personalised and accessible clinical information held by the user beyond standard care to standard information routinely held such as appointment cards and generic information on diagnosis, treatment or services available.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection and data extraction were undertaken independently by two authors and confirmed and checked by a third. We contacted authors of trials for additional and missing data. Where possible, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs (n = 607) of user-held records versus treatment as usual met the inclusion criteria. When the effect of user-held records on psychiatric hospital admissions was compared with treatment as usual in four studies, the pooled treatment effect showed no significant impact of the intervention and was of very low magnitude (n = 597, 4 RCTs, RR 0.99 CI 0.71 to 1.38, moderate quality evidence). Similarly, there was no significant effect of the intervention in three studies which investigated compulsory psychiatric hospital admissions (n = 507, 4 RCTs, RR 0.64 CI 0.37 to 1.10, moderate quality evidence). Other outcomes including satisfaction and mental state were investigated but pooled estimates were not obtainable due to skewed or poorly reported data, or only being investigated by one study. Two outcomes (violence and death) were not investigated by the included studies. Two important randomised studies are ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence gap remains regarding user-held, personalised, accessible clinical information for people with psychotic illnesses for many of the outcomes of interest. However, based on moderate quality evidence, this review suggests that there is no effect of the intervention on hospital or outpatient appointment use for individuals with psychotic disorders. The number of studies is low, however, and further evidence is required to ascertain whether these results are mediated by the type of intervention, such as involvement of a clinical team or the type of information included.

Dance therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Dance therapy or dance movement therapy (DMT) is defined as 'the psychotherapeutic use of movement as a process which furthers the emotional, social, cognitive, and physical integration of the individual'. It may be of value for people with developmental, medical, social, physical or psychological impairments. Dance therapy can be practiced in mental health rehabilitation units, nursing homes, day care centres and incorporated into disease prevention and health promotion programmes.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of dance therapy for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses compared with standard care and other interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the original July 2007 search of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group' register in July 2012. We also searched Chinese main medical databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included one randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing dance therapy and related approaches with standard care or other psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, quality assessed and extracted data. For continuous outcomes, we calculated a mean difference (MD); for binary outcomes we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one single blind study (total n = 45) of reasonable quality. It compared dance therapy plus routine care with routine care alone. Most people tolerated the treatment package but nearly 40% were lost in both groups by four months (1 RCT n = 45, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.31 to 1.51, low quality evidence). The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) average endpoint total scores were similar in both groups (1 RCT n = 43, MD -0.50 95% CI -11.80 to 10.80, moderate quality evidence) as were the positive sub-scores (1 RCT n = 43, MD 2.50 CI -0.67 to 5.67, moderate quality evidence). At the end of treatment, significantly more people in the dance therapy group had a greater than 20% reduction in PANSS negative symptom score (1 RCT n = 45, RR 0.62 CI 0.39 to 0.97, moderate quality evidence), and overall, average negative endpoint scores were lower (1 RCT n = 43, MD -4.40 CI -8.15 to -0.65, moderate quality evidence). There was no difference in satisfaction score (average Client's Assessment of Treatment Scale (CAT) score, 1 RCT n = 42, MD 0.40 CI -0.78 to 1.58, moderate quality evidence) and quality of life data were also equivocal (average Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of life (MANSA) score, 1 RCT n = 39, MD 0.00 CI -0.48 to 0.48, moderate quality evidence). 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on predominantly moderate quality data, there is no evidence to support - or refute - the use of dance therapy in this group of people. This therapy remains unproven and those with schizophrenia, their carers, trialists and funders of research may wish to encourage future work to increase high quality evidence in this area.

Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse

BACKGROUND

Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for reduction in substance use in people with a serious mental illness compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update (2013), the Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (July 2012), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific databases. The principal authors conducted two further searches (8 October 2012 and 15 January 2013) of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. A separate search for trials of contingency management was completed as this was an additional intervention category for this update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. For all meta-analyses we pooled data using a random-effects model. Using the GRADE approach, we identified seven patient-centred outcomes and assessed the quality of evidence for these within each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials with a total of 3165 participants. Evaluation of long-term integrated care included four RCTs (n = 735). We found no significant differences on loss to treatment (n = 603, 3 RCTs, RR 1.09 CI 0.82 to 1.45, low quality of evidence), death by 3 years (n = 421, 2 RCTs, RR 1.18 CI 0.39 to 3.57, low quality of evidence), alcohol use (not in remission at 36 months) (n = 143, 1 RCT, RR 1.15 CI 0.84 to 1.56,low quality of evidence), substance use (n = 85, 1 RCT, RR 0.89 CI 0.63 to 1.25, low quality of evidence), global assessment of functioning (n = 171, 1 RCT, MD 0.7 CI 2.07 to 3.47, low quality of evidence), or general life satisfaction (n = 372, 2 RCTs, MD 0.02 higher CI 0.28 to 0.32, moderate quality of evidence).For evaluation of non-integrated intensive case management with usual treatment (4 RCTs, n = 163) we found no statistically significant difference for loss to treatment at 12 months (n = 134, 3 RCTs, RR 1.21 CI 0.73 to 1.99, very low quality of evidence).Motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioural therapy compared to usual treatment (7 RCTs, total n = 878) did not reveal any advantage for retaining participants at 12 months (n = 327, 1 RCT, RR 0.99 CI 0.62 to 1.59, low quality of evidence) or for death (n = 493, 3 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.22 to 2.41, low quality of evidence), and no benefit for reducing substance use (n = 119, 1 RCT, MD 0.19 CI -0.22 to 0.6, low quality of evidence), relapse (n = 36, 1 RCT, RR 0.5 CI 0.24 to 1.04, very low quality of evidence) or global functioning (n = 445, 4 RCTs, MD 1.24 CI 1.86 to 4.34, very low quality of evidence).Cognitive behavioural therapy alone compared with usual treatment (2 RCTs, n = 152) showed no significant difference for losses from treatment at 3 months (n = 152, 2 RCTs, RR 1.12 CI 0.44 to 2.86, low quality of evidence). No benefits were observed on measures of lessening cannabis use at 6 months (n = 47, 1 RCT, RR 1.30 CI 0.79 to 2.15, very low quality of evidence) or mental state (n = 105, 1 RCT, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale MD 0.52 CI -0.78 to 1.82, low quality of evidence).We found no advantage for motivational interviewing alone compared with usual treatment (8 RCTs, n = 509) in reducing losses to treatment at 6 months (n = 62, 1 RCT, RR 1.71 CI 0.63 to 4.64, very low quality of evidence), although significantly more participants in the motivational interviewing group reported for their first aftercare appointment (n = 93, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 CI 0.53 to 0.9). Some differences, favouring treatment, were observed in abstaining from alcohol (n = 28, 1 RCT, RR 0.36 CI 0.17 to 0.75, very low quality of evidence) but not other substances (n = 89, 1 RCT, RR -0.07 CI -0.56 to 0.42, very low quality of evidence), and no differences were observed in mental state (n = 30, 1 RCT, MD 0.19 CI -0.59 to 0.21, very low quality of evidence).We found no significant differences for skills training in the numbers lost to treatment by 12 months (n = 94, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70 CI 0.44 to 1.1, very low quality of evidence).We found no differences for contingency management compared with usual treatment (2 RCTs, n = 206) in numbers lost to treatment at 3 months (n = 176, 1 RCT, RR 1.65 CI 1.18 to 2.31, low quality of evidence), number of stimulant positive urine tests at 6 months (n = 176, 1 RCT, RR 0.83 CI 0.65 to 1.06, low quality of evidence) or hospitalisations (n = 176, 1 RCT, RR 0.21 CI 0.05 to 0.93, low quality of evidence).We were unable to summarise all findings due to skewed data or because trials did not measure the outcome of interest. In general, evidence was rated as low or very low due to high or unclear risks of bias because of poor trial methods, or poorly reported methods, and imprecision due to small sample sizes, low event rates and wide confidence intervals.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 32 RCTs and found no compelling evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over another for people to remain in treatment or to reduce substance use or improve mental state in people with serious mental illnesses. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results. Further high quality trials are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.

Intermittent drug techniques for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medication is considered the mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia and is generally regarded as highly effective, especially in controlling positive symptoms. However, long-term antipsychotic exposure has been associated with a range of adverse effects, including extra-pyramidal symptoms (EPS), neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), tardive dyskinesia and death. Intermittent drug techniques refers to the 'use of medication only during periods of incipient relapse or symptom exacerbation rather than continuously'. The aim is to reduce the risk of typical adverse effects of antipsychotics by 'reducing long-term medication exposure for patients who are receiving maintenance treatment while limiting the risk of relapse', with a further goal of improving social functioning resulting from the reduction of antipsychotic-induced side effects

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of different intermittent drug techniques compared with maintenance treatment in people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (April 2012) and supplemented this by contacting relevant study authors, handsearching relevant intermittent drug treatment articles and manually searching reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intermittent drug techniques with standard maintenance therapy for people with schizophrenia. Primary outcomes of interest were relapse and hospitalisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of homogeneous dichotomous data and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. For non-skewed continuous endpoint data extracted from valid scales, we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups with a 95% CI. Where data displayed heterogeneity, these were analysed using a random-effects model. Skewed data are presented in tables. We assessed overall quality for clinically important outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 241 records retrieved by the search, 17 trials conducted between 1961 and 2011, involving 2252 participants with follow-up from six weeks to two years, were included. Homogenous data demonstrated that instances of relapse were significantly higher in people receiving any intermittent drug treatment in the long term (n = 436, 7 RCTs, RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.54, moderate quality evidence). Intermittent treatment was shown to be more effective than placebo, however, and demonstrated that significantly less people receiving intermittent antipsychotics experienced full relapse by medium term (n = 290, 2 RCTs, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.58, very low quality evidence). Hospitalisation rates were higher for people receiving any intermittent drug treatment by long term (n = 626, 5 RCTs, RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.06, moderate quality evidence). Results demonstrated little difference in instances of tardive dyskinesia in groups with any intermittent drug technique versus maintenance therapy, with equivocal results (displaying slight heterogeneity) at long term (n = 165, 4 RCTs, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.30, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results of this review support the existing evidence that intermittent antipsychotic treatment is not as effective as continuous, maintained antipsychotic therapy in preventing relapse in people with schizophrenia. More research is needed to assess any potential benefits or harm of intermittent treatment regarding adverse effects typically associated with maintained antipsychotic treatment, as well as any cost-effectiveness of this experimental treatment.

Fluphenazine (oral) versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Fluphenazine is one of the first drugs to be classed as an 'antipsychotic' and has been widely available for five decades.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of oral fluphenazine with placebo for the treatment of schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's trials register, which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the bibliographic databases Biological Abstracts, CINAHL, The Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT, LILACS, PSYNDEX, Sociological Abstracts and Sociofile, 15 May, 2012. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all randomised controlled trials comparing oral fluphenazine with placebo relevant to people with schizophrenia. Primary outcomes of interest were global state and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We inspected citations and abstracts independently, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed trials. We extracted data independently. Dichotomous data were analysed using fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were excluded if more than 50% of people were lost to follow-up, but, where possible, mean differences (MD) were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

From over 1200 electronic records of 415 studies identified by our initial search and this updated search, we excluded 48 potentially relevant studies and included seven trials published between 1964 and 1999 that randomised 439 (mostly adult participants). No new included trials were identified for this review update. Compared with placebo, global state outcomes of 'not improved or worsened' were not significantly different in the medium term in one small study (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 1.12 CI 0.79 to 1.58, very low quality of evidence). The risk of relapse in the long term was greater in two small studies in people receiving placebo (n = 86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.39 CI 0.05 to 3.31, very low quality of evidence), however with high degree of heterogeneity in the results. Only one person allocated fluphenazine was reported in the same small study to have died on long-term follow-up (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 2.38 CI 0.10 to 55.72, low quality of evidence). Short-term extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly more frequent with fluphenazine compared to placebo in two other studies for the outcomes of akathisia (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.43 CI 1.23 to 9.56, moderate quality of evidence) and rigidity (n = 227, 2 RCTs, RR 3.54 CI 1.76 to 7.14, moderate quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings in this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know, but they provide quantification to support clinical impression. Fluphenazine's global position as an effective treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the outcome of this review. However, fluphenazine is an imperfect treatment and if accessible, other inexpensive drugs less associated with adverse effects may be an equally effective choice for people with schizophrenia.

Interventions to encourage uptake of cancer screening for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Adults with severe mental illness (i.e. schizophrenia or other related psychotic disorders and bipolar disorder) can be at greater risk of cancer than those without severe mental illness (SMI). Early detection of cancer through screening is effective in improving patient outcomes including death. However, people with SMI are less likely than others to take up available cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions targeted at adults with SMI, or their carers or health professionals, and aimed at increasing the uptake of cancer screening tests for which the adults with SMI are eligible.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched electronically the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (25th October 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions, targeted towards adults with SMI or their carers or health professionals, to encourage uptake of cancer screening tests for which the adults with SMI were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed these against the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not find any trials that met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive search showed that currently there is no RCT evidence for any method of encouraging cancer screening uptake in people with SMI. No specific approach can therefore be recommended. High-quality, large-scale RCTs are needed urgently to help address the disparity between people with SMI and others in cancer screening uptake.

Preventive interventions for postnatal psychosis

BACKGROUND

Postnatal psychosis is a worldwide life-threatening condition that affects one to two in every 1000 new mothers. It has an abrupt onset within a month of childbirth. Affected new mothers rapidly develop frank psychosis, cognitive impairment, and disorganised behaviours. Factors that increase the risk of postnatal psychosis include primiparous mothers who are single, women who are older, or with a past psychiatric history and family history of affective psychosis, prenatal depression and autoimmune thyroid dysfunction. The risk of a future postnatal recurrence is 25% to 57%. Preventive interventions for postnatal psychosis aim at identifying women with risk factors, early recognition of imminent psychosis through screening, and preventive drug therapy. Mood stabilisers, antipsychotic drugs and hormone therapy may be beneficial in the prevention of postnatal psychotic episodes in women at risk.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the best available evidence for interventions aimed at preventing postnatal psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in October 2012 using the search strategy of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials relevant to the prevention of postnatal psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors inspected all citations to ensure reliable selection. If we had included relevant trials, we planned to assess the methodological quality of identified trials using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors would have independently extracted data. For homogenous dichotomous data, we planned to calculate the risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and the number needed to treat to benefit/harm (NNTB/NNTH) on an intention-to-treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

There are no included studies in this review. The electronic search produced three relevant references, among which we identified two old planned trials that seem never to have started, and one which we excluded a study because it was a report of a case series.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This is not an empty review - it is a review full of unanswered questions. Despite growing interest in women's mental health, the literature in the area of postnatal psychosis is still very limited. It seems that clinicians have no choice but to continue with their current practices guided solely by varied clinical judgement. Women at risk of postnatal psychosis and their relatives are justified to be disappointed in the medical/research fraternity. A post hoc PubMed topic (not methodology-specific) search identified mainly case series. Policy makers have no trial-based evidence upon which to base their guidelines. Certainly, preventive interventions for postnatal psychosis are difficult to justify with confidence without well-designed, well-conducted, and well-reported randomised studies. Available publications suggest that such studies are possible and funders of research may wish to make this work a priority.

Quetiapine versus typical antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Quetiapine is a widely used atypical antipsychotic drug for schizophrenia that has been on the market for over a decade. However, It is not clear how the effects of quetiapine differ from typical antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of quetiapine in comparison with typical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2010), and inspected references of all identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised control trials comparing oral quetiapine with typical antipsychotic drugs in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model. We presented chosen outcomes in a 'Summary of findings' table and comparative risks where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 43 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 7217 participants. Most studies were from China. The percentages of participants leaving the studies early were similar (36.5% in quetiapine group and 36.9% in typical antipsychotics group) and no significant difference between groups was apparent for leaving early due to any reason (23 RCTs n = 3576 RR 0.91 CI 0.81 to 1.01, moderate quality evidence), however, fewer participants in the quetiapine group left the studies early due to adverse events (15 RCTs, n = 3010, RR 0.48 CI 0.30 to 0.77).Overall global state was similar between groups (no clinically significant response; 16 RCTs, n = 1607, RR 0.96 CI 0.75 to 1.23, moderate quality evidence) and there was no significant difference in positive symptoms (PANSS positive subscore: 22 RCTs, n = 1934, MD 0.02 CI -0.39 to 0.43, moderate quality evidence). General psychopathology was equivocal (PANSS general psychopathology subscore: 18 RCTs, n = 1569, MD -0.20 CI -0.83 to 0.42) between those allocated to quetiapine and typical antipsychotics. However, quetiapine was statistically significantly more efficacious for negative symptoms (PANSS negative subscore: 22 RCTs, n = 1934, MD -0.82 CI -1.59 to -0.04, moderate quality evidence), however, this result was highly heterogeneous and driven by two small outlier studies with high effect sizes. Without these two studies, there was no heterogeneity and no statistically significant difference between quetiapine and typical antipsychotics.Compared with typical antipsychotics, quetiapine might cause fewer adverse effects (9 RCTs, n = 1985, RR 0.76 CI 0.64 to 0.90 number needed to treat to induce harm (NNTH) 10, CI 8 to 17), less abnormal ECG (2 RCTs, n = 165, RR 0.38 CI 0.16 to 0.92, NNTH 8, CI 4 to 55), fewer overall extrapyramidal effects (8 RCTs, n = 1,095, RR 0.17 CI 0.09 to 0.32, NNTH 3, CI 3 to 3, moderate quality evidence) and fewer specific extrapyramidal effects including akathisia, parkinsonism, dystonia and tremor. Moreover, it might cause lower prolactin level (4 RCTs, n = 1034, MD -16.20 CI -23.34 to -9.07, moderate quality evidence) and less weight gain compared with some typical antipsychotics in the short term (9 RCTs, n = 866, RR 0.52 CI 0.34 to 0.80, NNTH 8, CI 6 to 15).However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in suicide attempt, suicide, death, QTc prolongation, low blood pressure, tachycardia, sedation, gynaecomastia, galactorrhoea, menstrual irregularity and white blood cell count.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine may not differ from typical antipsychotics in the treatment of positive symptoms and general psychopathology. There are no clear differences in terms of the treatment of negative symptoms. However, it causes fewer adverse effects in terms of abnormal ECG, extrapyramidal effects, abnormal prolactin levels and weight gain.

Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, when compared with placebo or antipsychotics, alone or in combination with antihistamines, to control disturbed behaviour and reduce psychotic symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people with acute psychotic illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If heterogeneity was identified, this was explored using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials with a total of n = 1968 participants. There was no significant difference for most outcomes in the one trial that compared benzodiazepines with placebo, although there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving placebo in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term when benzodiazepines were compared with antipsychotics (n = 308, 5 RCTs, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.42, low quality evidence); however, people receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects (EPS) in the medium term (n = 536, 8 RCTs, RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39, moderate quality of evidence). Data comparing combined benzodiazepines and antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any significant results. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 155, 3 RCTs, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.70, very low quality evidence) but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67, very low quality evidence). However, more participants receiving combined benzodiazepines and haloperidol had not improved by medium term when compared to participants receiving olanzapine (n = 60,1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) or ziprasidone (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.25 to 12.75 very low quality evidence). When haloperidol and midazolam were compared with olanzapine, there was some evidence the combination was superior in terms of improvement, sedation and behaviour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from trials for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively little good data and most trials are too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high quality research is needed in this area.

Nidotherapy for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Nidotherapy is a therapeutic method that principally aims to modify the environment of people with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses, whilst working in conjunction with, or alongside other treatments. Rather than focusing on direct treatments or interventions, the aim is to help the individual identify the need for, and work to effect environmental change with the aim of minimising the impact of any form of mental disorder on the individual and society.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of nidotherapy added to standard care, compared with standard care or no treatment for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (December 2011) and supplemented this by contacting relevant study authors, handsearching nidotherapy articles and manually searching reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared nidotherapy with standard care or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently selected and quality assessed potential trials. We reliably extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of homogeneous dichotomous data. Scale data were only extracted from valid scales. For non-skewed continuous endpoint data, we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups. Skewed data have been presented in the Data and analyses as 'other data', with acknowledged means and standard deviations. We assessed risk of bias for the included study and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included only one study that compared nidotherapy-enhanced standard care with standard care alone (total 52 participants); this study was classified by its authors as a 'pilot study'. The duration of the included study was 18 months in total. The single study examined the short-term (up to six months) and medium-term (between six and 12 months) effects of nidotherapy-enhanced standard care versus standard care.Nidotherapy-enhanced standard care was favoured over standard care for social functioning in both the short term (n = 50, 1 RCT, MD -2.10, 95% CI -4.66 to 0.46) and medium term (n = 37, 1 RCT, MD -1.70, 95% CI -4.60 to 1.20, Very low quality); however, these results did not reach statistical significance. Results concerning engagement with non-inpatient services favoured the intervention group in both the short term (n = 50, 1 RCT, MD 2.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.87) and medium term (n = 37, 1 RCT, MD 1.70, 95% CI -0.09 to 3.49), with statistical significance evident in the short term, but not in the medium term. Results of people leaving the study early favoured the intervention in the short term (n = 52, 1 RCT, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.98), with slight favour of the control group at medium term (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.54); again, these results did not reach statistical significance. Results for the adverse effects/events of death (measured by 12 months) favoured the intervention (n = 52, 1 RCT, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.74, Very low quality) but with no statistical significance. Skewed results were available for mental state, service use, and economic outcomes, and present a mixed picture of the benefits of nidotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed into the possible benefits or harms of this newly-formulated therapy. Until such research is available, patients, clinicians, managers and policymakers should consider it an experimental approach.