1
|
Mayer SF, Corcoran C, Kennedy L, Leucht S, Bighelli I. Cognitive behavioural therapy added to standard care for first-episode and recent-onset psychosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 3:CD015331. [PMID: 38470162 PMCID: PMC10929366 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015331.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/13/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in the general population of people with schizophrenia. It is still unclear whether CBT can be effectively used in the population of people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of adding cognitive behavioural therapy to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis. SEARCH METHODS We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT added to standard care vs standard care in first-episode or recent-onset psychosis, in patients of any age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors (amongst SFM, CC, LK and IB) independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias using RoB2. Study authors were contacted for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured on a validated rating scale. Secondary outcomes included other specific measures of mental state, global state, relapse, admission to hospital, functioning, leaving the study early, cognition, quality of life, satisfaction with care, self-injurious or aggressive behaviour, adverse events, and mortality. MAIN RESULTS We included 28 studies, of which 26 provided data on 2407 participants (average age 24 years). The mean sample size in the included studies was 92 participants (ranging from 19 to 444) and duration ranged between 26 and 52 weeks. When looking at the results at combined time points (mainly up to one year after start of the intervention), CBT added to standard care was associated with a greater reduction in overall symptoms of schizophrenia (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.08, 20 RCTs, n = 1508, I2 = 68%, substantial heterogeneity, low certainty of the evidence), and also with a greater reduction in positive (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.06, 22 RCTs, n = 1565, I² = 52%, moderate heterogeneity), negative (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.11, 22 RCTs, n = 1651, I² = 0%) and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.01, 18 RCTs, n = 1182, I² = 0%) than control. CBT added to standard care was also associated with a greater improvement in the global state (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.01, 4 RCTs, n = 329, I² = 47%, moderate heterogeneity) and in functioning (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.05, 18 RCTs, n = 1241, I² = 53%, moderate heterogeneity, moderate certainty of the evidence) than control. We did not find a difference between CBT added to standard care and control in terms of number of participants with relapse (relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.18, 7 RCTs, n = 693, I² = 48%, low certainty of the evidence), leaving the study early for any reason (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05, 25 RCTs, n = 2242, I² = 12%, moderate certainty of the evidence), adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.97, 1 RCT, n = 43, very low certainty of the evidence) and the other investigated outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review synthesised the latest evidence on CBT added to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis. The evidence identified by this review suggests that people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis may benefit from CBT additionally to standard care for multiple outcomes (overall, positive, negative and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia, global state and functioning). Future studies should better define this population, for which often heterogeneous definitions are used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susanna Franziska Mayer
- Section for Evidence-Based Medicine in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, München, Germany
| | | | - Liam Kennedy
- Department of Old Age Psychiatry, Carew House, St Vincent's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Stefan Leucht
- Section for Evidence-Based Medicine in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, München, Germany
- German Center for Mental Health (DZPG), Munich, Germany
| | - Irene Bighelli
- Section for Evidence-Based Medicine in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, München, Germany
- German Center for Mental Health (DZPG), Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bighelli I, Çıray O, Salahuddin NH, Leucht S. Cognitive behavioural therapy without medication for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 2:CD015332. [PMID: 38323679 PMCID: PMC10848293 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015332.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in people with schizophrenia when provided in combination with antipsychotic medication. It remains unclear whether CBT could be safely and effectively offered in the absence of concomitant antipsychotic therapy. OBJECTIVES To investigate the effects of CBT for schizophrenia when administered without concomitant pharmacological treatment with antipsychotics. SEARCH METHODS We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with schizophrenia comparing CBT without antipsychotics to standard care, standard care without antipsychotics, or the combination of CBT and antipsychotics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured with a validated rating scale. Key secondary outcomes were specific symptoms of schizophrenia, relapse, service use, number of participants leaving the study early, functioning, quality of life, and number of participants actually receiving antipsychotics during the trial. We also assessed behaviour, adverse effects, and mortality. MAIN RESULTS We included 4 studies providing data for 300 participants (average age 21.94 years). The mean sample size was 75 participants (range 61 to 90 participants). Study duration was between 26 and 39 weeks for the intervention period and 26 to 104 weeks for the follow-up period. Three studies employed a blind rater, while one study was triple-blind. All analyses included data from a maximum of three studies. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. For the primary outcome overall symptoms of schizophrenia, results showed a difference favouring CBT without antipsychotics when compared to no specific treatment at long term (> 1 year mean difference measured with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS MD) -14.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.75 to -1.79, 1 RCT, n = 34). There was no difference between CBT without antipsychotics compared with antipsychotics (up to 12 months PANSS MD 3.38, 95% CI -2.38 to 9.14, 2 RCTs, n = 63) (very low-certainty evidence) or compared with CBT in combination with antipsychotics (up to 12 months standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.30, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.65, 3 RCTs, n = 125). Compared with no specific treatment, CBT without antipsychotics was associated with a reduction in overall symptoms (as described above) and negative symptoms (PANSS negative MD -4.06, 95% CI -7.50 to -0.62, 1 RCT, n = 34) at longer than 12 months. It was also associated with a lower duration of hospital stay (number of days in hospital MD -22.45, 95% CI -28.82 to -16.08, 1 RCT, n = 74) and better functioning (Personal and Social Performance Scale MD -12.42, 95% CI -22.75 to -2.09, 1 RCT, n = 40, low-certainty evidence) at up to 12 months. We did not find a difference between CBT and antipsychotics in any of the investigated outcomes, with the exception of adverse events measured with the Antipsychotic Non-Neurological Side-Effects Rating Scale (ANNSERS) at both 6 and 12 months (MD -4.94, 95% CI -8.60 to -1.28, 2 RCTs, n = 48; MD -6.96, 95% CI -11.55 to -2.37, 2 RCTs, n = 42). CBT without antipsychotics was less effective than CBT combined with antipsychotics in reducing positive symptoms at up to 12 months (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 126). CBT without antipsychotics was associated with a lower number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event in comparison with CBT combined with antipsychotics at up to 12 months (risk ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.80, 1 RCT, n = 39, low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review is the first attempt to systematically synthesise the evidence about CBT delivered without medication to people with schizophrenia. The limited number of studies and low to very low certainty of the evidence prevented any strong conclusions. An important limitation in the available studies was that participants in the CBT without medication group (about 35% on average) received antipsychotic treatment, highlighting the challenges of this approach. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to provide additional data on the feasibility and efficacy of CBT without antipsychotics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irene Bighelli
- Section for Evidence-Based Medicine in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
- German Center for Mental Health (DZPG), Munich, Germany
| | - Oğulcan Çıray
- Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Department, Mardin State Hospital Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Department, Mardin, Turkey
| | - Nurul Husna Salahuddin
- Section for Evidence-Based Medicine in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Stefan Leucht
- Section for Evidence-Based Medicine in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
- German Center for Mental Health (DZPG), Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rammou A, Berry C, Fowler D, Hayward M. "Attitudes to voices": a survey exploring the factors influencing clinicians' intention to assess distressing voices and attitudes towards working with young people who hear voices. Front Psychol 2023; 14:1167869. [PMID: 37287782 PMCID: PMC10242135 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1167869] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2023] [Accepted: 04/28/2023] [Indexed: 06/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Due to the general psychopathological vulnerability of young people who hear distressing voices, research has stressed the importance for clinicians to assess this experience in youth. Nonetheless, the limited literature on the topic comes from studies with clinicians in adult health services and it primarily reports that clinicians do not feel confident in systematically assessing voice-hearing and doubt the appropriateness of doing so. We applied the Theory of Planned Behavior and identified clinicians' job attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and perceived subjective norms as putative predictors of their intent to assess voice-hearing in youth. Method Nine hundred and ninety-six clinicians from adult mental health services, 467 from Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMHS) and Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services and 318 primary care clinicians across the UK completed an online survey. The survey gathered data on attitudes toward working with people who hear voices, stigmatizing beliefs, and self-perceived confidence in voice-related practices (screening for, discussing and providing psychoeducation material about voice-hearing). Responses from youth mental health clinicians were compared with professionals working in adult mental health and primary care settings. This study also aimed to identify what youth mental health clinicians believe about assessing distressing voices in adolescents and how beliefs predict assessment intention. Results Compared to other clinicians, EIP clinicians reported the most positive job attitudes toward working with young voice-hearers, the highest self-efficacy in voice-hearing practices, and similar levels of stigma. Job attitudes, perceived behavioral control and subjective norms explained a large part of the influences on clinician's intention to assess voice-hearing across all service groups. In both CAMHS and EIP services, specific beliefs relating to the usefulness of assessing voice-hearing, and perceived social pressure from specialist mental health professionals regarding assessment practices predicted clinician intention. Discussion Clinicians' intention to assess distressing voices in young people was moderately high, with attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control explaining a large part of its variance. Specifically in youth mental health services, promoting a working culture that encourages opening and engaging in discussions about voice-hearing between clinicians, and with young people, and introducing supportive assessment and psychoeducation material about voice-hearing could encourage conversations about voices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aikaterini Rammou
- School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
- Research & Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Hove, United Kingdom
| | - Clio Berry
- Research & Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Hove, United Kingdom
- Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
| | - David Fowler
- School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
- Research & Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Hove, United Kingdom
| | - Mark Hayward
- School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
- Research & Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Hove, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Morrison AP, Pyle M, Maughan D, Johns L, Freeman D, Broome MR, Husain N, Fowler D, Hudson J, MacLennan G, Norrie J, Shiers D, Hollis C, James A. Antipsychotic medication versus psychological intervention versus a combination of both in adolescents with first-episode psychosis (MAPS): a multicentre, three-arm, randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study. Lancet Psychiatry 2020; 7:788-800. [PMID: 32649925 PMCID: PMC7606914 DOI: 10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30248-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2019] [Revised: 04/22/2020] [Accepted: 05/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis. METHODS We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14-18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data on trial referral and recruitment, session attendance or medication adherence, retention, and treatment acceptability) and the proposed primary efficacy outcome was total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at 6 months. Primary outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported according to as-treated status, for all patients who had received at least one session of CBT or family intervention, or at least one dose of antipsychotics. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433. FINDINGS Of 101 patients referred to the study, 61 patients (mean age 16·3 years [SD 1·3]) were recruited from April 10, 2017, to Oct 31, 2018, 18 of whom were randomly assigned to psychological intervention, 22 to antipsychotics, and 21 to antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. The trial recruitment rate was 68% of our target sample size of 90 participants. The study had a low referral to recruitment ratio (around 2:1), a high rate of retention (51 [84%] participants retained at the 6-month primary endpoint), a high rate of adherence to psychological intervention (defined as six or more sessions of CBT; in 32 [82%] of 39 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups), and a moderate rate of adherence to antipsychotic medication (defined as at least 6 consecutive weeks of exposure to antipsychotics; in 28 [65%] of 43 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups). Mean scores for PANSS total at the 6-month primary endpoint were 68·6 (SD 17·3) for antipsychotic monotherapy (6·2 points lower than at randomisation), 59·8 (13·7) for psychological intervention (13·1 points lower than at randomisation), and 62·0 (15·9) for antipsychotics plus psychological intervention (13·9 points lower than at randomisation). A good clinical response at 6 months (defined as ≥50% improvement in PANSS total score) was achieved in four (22%) of 18 patients receiving antipsychotic monotherapy, five (31%) of 16 receiving psychological intervention, and five (29%) of 17 receiving antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. In as-treated groups, serious adverse events occurred in eight [35%] of 23 patients in the combined group, two [13%] of 15 in the antipsychotics group, four [24%] of 17 in the psychological intervention group, and four [80%] of five who did not receive any treatment. No serious adverse events were considered to be related to participation in the trial. INTERPRETATION This trial is the first to show that a head-to-head clinical trial comparing psychological intervention, antipsychotics, and their combination is safe in young people with first-episode psychosis. However, the feasibility of a larger trial is unclear because of site-specific recruitment challenges, and amendments to trial design would be needed for an adequately powered clinical and cost-effectiveness trial that provides robust evidence. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony P Morrison
- Psychosis Research Unit, Greater Manchester Mental Health National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Prestwich, UK; Division of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Zochonis Building, Manchester, UK.
| | - Melissa Pyle
- Psychosis Research Unit, Greater Manchester Mental Health National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Prestwich, UK; Division of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Zochonis Building, Manchester, UK
| | - Daniel Maughan
- Department of Psychiatry, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Louise Johns
- Department of Psychiatry, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK; Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Daniel Freeman
- Department of Psychiatry, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK; Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Matthew R Broome
- Department of Psychiatry, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK; Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK; Institute for Mental Health and Centre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Nusrat Husain
- Division of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Zochonis Building, Manchester, UK; Early Intervention in Psychosis Service, Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust, Chorley, UK
| | - David Fowler
- Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
| | - Jemma Hudson
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Graeme MacLennan
- The Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - John Norrie
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, UK
| | - David Shiers
- Psychosis Research Unit, Greater Manchester Mental Health National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Prestwich, UK
| | - Chris Hollis
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) MindTech MedTech Co-operative and NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Anthony James
- Department of Psychiatry, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK; Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|