The ethical challenges of a randomized controlled trial of involuntary outpatient commitment

Long-acting injectable antipsychotics and their use in court-ordered treatment: A cross-sectional survey of psychiatric pharmacists' perceptions

Introduction

People with serious mental illness may be subjected to “court-ordered treatment” (COT), per the mental health statutes of their respective state. COT enforces adherence to a psychiatric treatment regimen and may involve involuntary medication administration. Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics are frequently used in this setting, although little is known about the clinical effectiveness or patterns of use of these agents in the context of COT. Because psychiatric pharmacists are medication experts, we sought to characterize their perceptions and experiences on this topic.

Methods

A cross-sectional, electronic, 14-item survey was administered via the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists listserv from October 9, 2018, to November 9, 2018. The survey collected demographic information, experience and use of LAI antipsychotics at each practice site, and perception of LAI antipsychotics.

Results

Of 843 possible respondents, 72 completed the survey, yielding an 8.5% response rate. LAIs were perceived as underused or adequately used as a whole, with a significant difference in perception favoring the opinion that LAIs are underused versus overused for those respondents who perceived an adherence benefit (P = .042). We also found that LAIs were used disproportionately in the context of COT versus oral formulations (P = .03).

Discussion

The use of LAIs in the context of COT has not been studied, and it may expose this vulnerable population to adverse effects from medications they are legally compelled to take. Further research on the perceptions of other interdisciplinary team members and the clinical impact of LAI use in COT is needed.

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

BACKGROUND

It is controversial 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 compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (2003, 2008, 2012, 8 November 2013, 3 June 2016). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary.

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 CCT such as supervised discharge.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and, where possible, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE approach to create 'Summary of findings' tables for key outcomes and assessed the risk of bias of these findings.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included three studies (n = 749). Two were based in the USA and one in England. The English study had the least bias, meeting three out of the seven criteria of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. The two other studies met only one criterion, the majority being rated unclear.Two trials from the USA (n = 416) compared court-ordered 'outpatient commitment' (OPC) with entirely voluntary community treatment. There were no significant differences between OPC and voluntary treatment by 11 to 12 months in any of the main health service or participant level outcome indices: service use - readmission to hospital (2 RCTs, n= 416, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, low-quality evidence); service use - compliance with medication (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19, low-quality evidence); social functioning - arrested at least once (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.52, low-quality evidence); social functioning - homelessness (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.15, low-quality evidence); or satisfaction with care - perceived coercion (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.89, low-quality evidence). However, one trial found the risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80, low-quality evidence).The other RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive and briefer supervised discharge (Section 17) in England. The study found no difference between the two groups for either the main health service outcomes including readmission to hospital by 12 months (1 RCT, n = 333, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence), or any of the participant level outcomes. The lack of any difference between the two groups persisted at 36 months' follow-up.Combining the results of all three trials did not alter these results. For instance, participants on any form of CCT were no less likely to be readmitted than participants in the control groups whether on entirely voluntary treatment or subject to intermittent supervised discharge (3 RCTs, n = 749, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16 moderate-quality evidence). In terms of NNTB, it would take 142 orders to prevent one readmission. There was no clear difference between groups for perceived coercion by 12 months (3 RCTs, n = 645, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.71, moderate-quality evidence).There were no data for adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These review data show CCT results in no clear difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with voluntary care or brief supervised discharge. 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 low- to moderate-quality evidence. In addition, clinical trials may not fully reflect the potential benefits of this complex intervention.

Community treatment orders: clinical and social outcomes, and a subgroup analysis from the OCTET RCT

OBJECTIVE

Despite widespread use internationally, there is no convincing evidence that community treatment orders (CTO) (legal regimes making out-patient treatment compulsory), reduce readmission rates or have wider patient benefit. The primary and secondary outcomes of the Oxford Community Treatment Order Evaluation Trial (OCTET) (hospitalisation) showed no benefit. This article will, first, test the effect of community compulsion on wider clinical and social outcomes and on patients' experiences of services and the use of treatment pressure and second, explore differential effects in different groups of patients.

METHOD

OCTET is a RCT of CTO effectiveness. Three hundred and thirty-six patients were randomised and data for the 333 eligible patients were collected from interviews and medical records at baseline, 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference at 12 months between the two arms in any of the reported outcomes, except a small difference in patients' view of the effectiveness of treatment pressure, which is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Two statistically significant interactions were found in the subgroup analysis: symptoms interacted with age and with education, but no pattern was demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

CTOs do not have benefit on any of the tested outcomes, or for any subgroup of patients. Their continued use should be carefully reconsidered.

CTOs: what is the state of the evidence?

PURPOSE

Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) require outpatients to adhere to treatment and permit rapid hospitalisation when necessary. They have become a clinical and policy solution to repeated hospital readmissions despite some strong opposition and the contested nature of published evidence. In this article, we appraise the current literature on CTOs from the viewpoint of Evidence-Based Medicine and discuss the way forward for using and researching CTOs.

RESULTS

Non-randomised outcome studies show conflicting results, but their lack of standardisation of methods and measures makes it difficult to draw conclusions. In contrast, all three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted concur in their findings that CTOs do not impact on hospital outcomes. No systematic review or meta-analysis has identified any clear clinical advantage to CTOs.

CONCLUSION

The evidence-base does not support the use of CTOs in their current form. Involuntary clinical interventions must conform to the highest standard of evidence-based care. To enable clinicians to take an evidence-based approach and to settle remaining uncertainties about the current evidence, high-quality RCTs should be designed and undertaken, using standardised outcome measures.

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.

Community treatment orders for patients with psychosis (OCTET): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Compulsory supervision outside hospital has been developed internationally for the treatment of mentally ill people following widespread deinstitutionalisation but its efficacy has not yet been proven. Community treatment orders (CTOs) for psychiatric patients became available in England and Wales in 2008. We tested whether CTOs reduce admissions compared with use of Section 17 leave when patients in both groups receive equivalent levels of clinical contact but different lengths of compulsory supervision.

METHODS

OCTET is a non-blinded, parallel-arm randomised controlled trial. We postulated that patients with a diagnosis of psychosis discharged from hospital on CTOs would have a lower rate of readmission over 12 months than those discharged on the pre-existing Section 17 leave of absence. Eligible patients were those involuntarily admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of psychosis, aged 18-65 years, who were deemed suitable for supervised outpatient care by their clinicians. Consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to be discharged from hospital either on CTO or Section 17 leave. Randomisation used random permuted blocks with lengths of two, four, and six, and stratified for sex, schizophrenic diagnosis, and duration of illness. Research assistants, treating clinicians, and patients were aware of assignment to randomisation group. The primary outcome measure was whether or not the patient was admitted to hospital during the 12-month follow-up period, analysed with a log-binomial regression model adjusted for stratification factors. We did all analyses by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN73110773.

FINDINGS

Of 442 patients assessed, 336 patients were randomly assigned to be discharged from hospital either on CTO (167 patients) or Section 17 leave (169 patients). One patient withdrew directly after randomisation and two were ineligible, giving a total sample of 333 patients (166 in the CTO group and 167 in the Section 17 group). At 12 months, despite the fact that the length of initial compulsory outpatient treatment differed significantly between the two groups (median 183 days CTO group vs 8 days Section 17 group, p<0·001) the number of patients readmitted did not differ between groups (59 [36%] of 166 patients in the CTO group vs 60 [36%] of 167 patients in the Section 17 group; adjusted relative risk 1·0 [95% CI 0·75-1·33]).

INTERPRETATION

In well coordinated mental health services the imposition of compulsory supervision does not reduce the rate of readmission of psychotic patients. We found no support in terms of any reduction in overall hospital admission to justify the significant curtailment of patients' personal liberty.

FUNDING

National Institute of Health Research.

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

BACKGROUND

There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illnesses reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning. Given the widespread use of such powers it is important to assess the effects of this type of legislation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We undertook searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register 2003, 2008, and Science Citation Index. We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors of each included study.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials of compulsory community treatment compared with standard care for people with severe mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected and quality assessed studies and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed effects risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two randomised clinical trials (total n = 416) of court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) from the USA. We found little evidence that compulsory community treatment was effective 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 1.2); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89). However, risk of victimisation may decrease with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.5 CI 0.31 to 0.8). 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). A new search for trials in 2008 did not find any new trials that were relevant to this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compulsory community treatment results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard care. People receiving compulsory community treatment 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. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this type of legislation is introduced.

Is mandatory outpatient treatment effective?

This paper reviews the major studies of mandatory outpatient treatment (MOT) and examines why there has been inconsistency in some of the findings. Attempts to answer the question "is mandatory treatment effective?" must first clarify the type of mandatory treatment being examined, the type of patient being treated, and the outcome by which effectiveness is measured. There is consistent evidence that various forms of MOT increase follow-up with psychiatric services and that court-ordered outpatient committal decreases victimization of patients in the community. It also appears likely that MOT reduces the use of hospitalization; but, due to methodological problems associated with the research, this conclusion remains controversial.

The evolution of outpatient commitment in the USA: from conundrum to quagmire

Outpatient commitment (OPC), a major form of involuntary community-based treatment, has evolved in the United States on a state-by-state basis amidst a storm of controversy. The polarizing debate that has gone on intensely about OPC for the last two decades has all too often been devoid of data. This article reviews the various arguments pro and con about OPC, and then examines the research on the effectiveness of OPC. Since the newest data seem to support OPC as a useful tool in dealing with specific subpopulations of persons with chronic mental illness, the paper examines the question of whether OPC is a legitimate use of government power. The most extensive analysis of this question to date has occurred in the New York State Courts which have supported the New York State OPC statute, Kendra's Law. The paper concludes with an examination of the future of OPC in the states, calling in particular for further research into the question of determining to whom, from a clinical point of view, should OPC be delivered.

Community treatment orders: profile of a Canadian experience

OBJECTIVE

This study reports the first published Canadian profile of a sample of psychiatric patients from the Royal Ottawa Hospital in Ottawa, Ontario, who were issued community treatment orders (CTOs).

METHOD

We undertook a population study of sociodemographic and health care use patterns from January 2001 to September 2003, using a standardized information collection tool.

RESULTS

The issuance of CTOs was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the number and length of hospital admissions and increased use of supportive community-based services and supportive housing.

CONCLUSION

CTOs are effective tools for allowing patients to live in the least restrictive setting possible while they receive diverse services. They also effectively reduce rates and lengths of readmission to hospital.

Why are community treatment orders controversial?

The use of community treatment orders and other forms of mandatory outpatient treatment has been controversial. The debate on the appropriateness of compulsory treatment in the community addresses a volatile mix of clinical, social policy, legal, and philosophical issues. This paper describes the major sources of contention, outlines the position of the protagonists, and where possible, attempts to answer some of the questions raised and identify common ground.

Community treatment orders: ethical practice in an era of magical thinking

With the passage of legislation in June 2000, coercive measures in the form of community treatment orders (CTOs) have become part of the community mental health landscape in Ontario. Given that community practitioners place a high value upon their ability to create voluntary and egalitarian partnerships with clients, the question of whether ethical practice is possible under conditions of legislated coercion is relevant. Based upon a review of the pro and con arguments that preceded CTO legislation, followed by an examination of available research on effectiveness, this paper suggests that forms of magical thinking have been at work on both sides of the CTO debate. A broader definition of coercion is proposed--one that envelopes both overt and covert forms. Finally, the author offers an approach to ethical practice which is based on the use of transformative power rather than coercive power, and which includes a 3-step strategy (using liberation tactics, proactive contracting, and procedural justice).