Losing participants before the trial ends erodes credibility of findings

Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Risk assessment for aggressive behaviour in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Aggressive or violent behaviour is often associated with people with schizophrenia in common perceptions of the disease. Risk assessment methods have been used to identify and evaluate the behaviour of those individuals who are at the greatest risk of perpetrating aggression or violence or characterise the likelihood to commit acts. Although many different interventions have been developed to decrease aggressive or violent incidences in inpatient care, staff working in inpatient settings seek easy-to-use methods to decrease patient aggressive events. However, many of these are time-consuming, and they require intensive training for staff and patient monitoring. It has also been recognised in clinical practice that if staff monitor patients' behaviour in a structured manner, the monitoring itself may result in a reduction of aggressive/violent behaviour and incidents in psychiatric settings.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP, on 10 February 2021. We also inspected references of all identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing structured risk assessment methods added to standard professional care with standard professional care for the evaluation of aggressive or violent behaviour among people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data, and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies and created a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies in the review. The total number of participants was not identifiable, as some studies provided number of participants included, and some only patient days. The studies compared a package of structured assessment methods with a control group that included routine nursing care and drug therapy or unstructured psychiatric observations/treatment based on clinical judgement. In two studies, information about treatment in control care was not available. One study reported results for our primary outcome, clinically important change in aggressive/violent behaviour, measured by the rate of severe aggression events. There was likely a positive effect favouring structured risk assessment over standard professional care (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85; 1 RCT; 1852 participants; corrected for cluster design: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial reported data for the use of coercive measures (seclusion room). Compared to standard professional care, structured risk assessment may have little or no effect on use of seclusion room as days (corrected for cluster design: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.07; N = 20; low-certainty evidence) or use of seclusion room as secluded participants (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.39 to 8.7; 1 RCT; N = 20; low-certainty evidence). However, seclusion room may be used less frequently in the standard professional care group compared to the structured risk assessment group (incidence) (corrected for cluster design: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.47; 1 RCT; N = 20; substantial heterogeneity, Chi2 = 0.0; df = 0.0; P = 0.0; I2 = 100%; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a clear effect on adverse events of escape (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); fall down (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); or choking (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence) when comparing structured risk assessment to standard professional care. There were no useable data for patient-related outcomes such as global state, acceptance of treatment, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, service use, or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude that structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods are effective for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. Future work should combine the use of interventions and structured risk assessment methods to prevent aggressive incidents in psychiatric inpatient settings.

Cognitive behavioural therapy added to standard care for first-episode and recent-onset psychosis

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.

Cognitive behavioural therapy without medication for schizophrenia

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.

Comparing the efficacies of transcranial magnetic stimulation treatments using different targeting methods in major depressive disorder: protocol for a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC) has been widely used as a treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) in the past two decades. Different methods for localising the lDLPFC target include the '5 cm' method, the F3 method and the neuro-navigational method. However, whether TMS efficacies differ between the three targeting methods remains unclear. We present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacies of TMS treatments using these three targeting methods in MDD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Relevant studies reported in English or Chinese and published up to May 2023 will be identified from searches of the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database. We will include all randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of an active TMS treatment using any one of the three targeting methods compared with sham TMS treatment or comparing efficacies between active TMS treatments using different targeting methods. Interventions must include a minimum of 10 sessions of high-frequency TMS over the lDLPFC. The primary outcome is the reduction score of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. The dropout rate is a secondary outcome representing the TMS treatment's acceptability. Pairwise meta-analyses and a random-effects NMA will be conducted using Stata. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank the different targeting methods in terms of efficacy and acceptability.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review and NMA does not require ethics approval. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023410273.

Magnetic seizure therapy for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is one of the most common and disabling mental disorders. About 20% of people with schizophrenia do not respond to antipsychotics, which are the mainstay of the treatment for schizophrenia today, and need to seek other treatment options. Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) is one of the novel non-invasive brain stimulation techniques that are being investigated in recent years.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of MST for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 March 2022, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MST alone or plus standard care with ECT or any other interventions for people with schizophrenia.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed reference screening, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias and quality assessment in duplicate. We calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the original risk of bias tool for risk of bias assessment and created a Summary of findings table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one four-week study with 79 adults in acute schizophrenia, comparing MST plus standard care to ECT plus standard care in this review. We rated the overall risk of bias as high due to high risk of bias in the domains of selective reporting and other biases (early termination and baseline imbalance) and unclear risk of bias in the domain of blinding of participants and personnel. We found that MST and ECT may not differ in improving the global state (n = 79, risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.70), overall (n = 79, mean difference (MD) -0.20, 95% CI -8.08 to 7.68), the positive symptoms (n = 79, MD 1.40, 95% CI -1.97 to 4.77) and the negative symptoms (n = 79, MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.85 to 1.85) in people with schizophrenia.  We found  that MST compared to ECT may cause less delayed memory deficit and less cognitive deterioration (n = 79, number of people with a delayed memory deficit, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.96; n = 79, mean change in global cognitive function, MD 5.80, 95% CI 0.80 to 10.80), but also may improve more cognitive function (n = 47, number of people with any cognitive improvement, RR 3.30, 95% CI 1.29 to 8.47).  We found that there may be no difference between the two groups in terms of leaving the study early due to any reason (n = 79, RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.73 to 8.59), due to adverse effects (n = 79, RR 3.35, 95% CI 0.39 to 28.64) or due to inefficacy (n = 79, RR 2.52, 95% CI 0.11 to 60.10).  Since all findings were based on one study with high risk of bias and the confidence in the evidence was very low, we were not sure these comparable or favourable effects of MST over ECT were its true effects.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the paucity of data, we cannot draw any conclusion on the efficacy and tolerability of MST for people with schizophrenia. Well-designed RCTs are warranted to answer the question.

Post‐incident debriefing for people with schizophrenia after coercive measures

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To investigate the effects of post‐incident debriefing after coercive measures for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia‐type psychosis.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. efficacy as a continuous outcome. Our secondary outcomes were 2. efficacy as a dichotomous outcome, 3. Social adjustment, 4. health-related quality of life and 5. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies (1364 participants), 10 of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Six of these compared antidepressants and placebo, three compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update, we included four additional studies, three of which contributed data for the primary outcome. For acute-phase treatment response (six to 12 weeks), antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms when compared with placebo, even though the evidence is very uncertain. This was true when depressive symptoms were measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.12; 7 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when measured as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96; 5 studies, 662 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons, we retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and for mirtazapine versus TCAs. There was no difference between the various classes of antidepressants (continuous outcome: SSRI versus TCA: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18; 3 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mirtazapine versus TCA: SMD -4.80, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.10; 1 study, 25 participants). There was a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants versus placebo for the secondary efficacy outcomes (continuous outcome, response at one to four weeks; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences for these outcomes when comparing two different classes of antidepressants, even though the evidence was very uncertain. In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 9 studies, 889 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and TCAs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.22; 3 studies, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the heterogeneous quality of the studies, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were few and of low quality. This review found a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants against placebo in depressed participants with cancer. However, the certainty of evidence is very low and, on the basis of these results, it is difficult to draw clear implications for practice. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which drug to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of people with major depression, also taking into account that data on people with other serious medical conditions suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Furthermore, this update shows that the usage of the newly US Food and Drug Administration-approved antidepressant esketamine in its intravenous formulation might represent a potential treatment for this specific population of people, since it can be used both as an anaesthetic and an antidepressant. However, data are too inconclusive and further studies are needed. We conclude that to better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

Placebo versus no treatment for people with schizophrenia

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To compare the effects of placebo versus no treatment in people with schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic dose reduction compared to dose continuation for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia, yet they are associated with diverse and potentially dose-related side effects which can reduce quality of life. For this reason, the lowest possible doses of antipsychotics are generally recommended, but higher doses are often used in clinical practice. It is still unclear if and how antipsychotic doses could be reduced safely in order to minimise the adverse-effect burden without increasing the risk of relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of reducing antipsychotic dose compared to continuing the current dose for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on 10 February 2021 at 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. We also inspected the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose reduction against continuation in people with schizophrenia or related disorders who were stabilised on their current antipsychotic treatment.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened relevant records for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcomes were clinically important change in quality of life,  rehospitalisations and dropouts due to adverse effects; key secondary outcomes were clinically important change in functioning, relapse, dropouts for any reason, and at least one adverse effect. We also examined scales measuring symptoms, quality of life, and functioning as well as a comprehensive list of specific adverse effects. We pooled outcomes at the endpoint preferably closest to one year. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs, of which 22 studies provided data with 2635 participants (average age 38.4 years old). The median study sample size was 60 participants (ranging from 18 to 466 participants) and length was 37 weeks (ranging from 12 weeks to 2 years). There were variations in the dose reduction strategies in terms of speed of reduction (i.e. gradual in about half of the studies (within 2 to 16 weeks) and abrupt in the other half), and in terms of degree of reduction (i.e. median planned reduction of 66% of the dose up to complete withdrawal in three studies). We assessed risk of bias across outcomes predominantly as some concerns or high risk.  No study reported data on the number of participants with a clinically important change in quality of life or functioning, and only eight studies reported continuous data on scales measuring quality of life or functioning. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation on scales measuring quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.15, 6 RCTs, n = 719, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and scales measuring functioning (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.17, 6 RCTs, n = 966, I2 = 0%, high certainty evidence). Dose reduction in comparison to continuation may increase the risk of rehospitalisation based on data from eight studies with estimable effect sizes; however, the 95% CI does not exclude the possibility of no difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.81, 8 RCTs, n = 1413, I2 = 59% (moderate heterogeneity), very low certainty evidence). Similarly, dose reduction increased the risk of relapse based on data from 20 studies (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.06, 20 RCTs, n = 2481, I2 = 70% (substantial heterogeneity), low certainty evidence).   More participants in the dose reduction group in comparison to the continuation group left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.49, 6 RCTs with estimable effect sizes, n = 1079, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and for any reason (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1551, I2 = 48% (moderate heterogeneity), moderate certainty evidence). Lastly, there was no difference between the dose reduction and continuation groups in the number of participants with at least one adverse effect based on data from four studies with estimable effect sizes (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12, 5 RCTs, n = 998 (4 RCTs, n = 980 with estimable effect sizes), I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesised the latest evidence on the reduction of antipsychotic doses for stable individuals with schizophrenia. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation groups in quality of life, functioning, and number of participants with at least one adverse effect. However, there was a higher risk for relapse and dropouts, and potentially for rehospitalisations, with dose reduction. Of note, the majority of the trials focused on relapse prevention rather potential beneficial outcomes on quality of life, functioning, and adverse effects, and in some studies there was rapid and substantial reduction of doses. Further well-designed RCTs are therefore needed to provide more definitive answers.

Pharmacological interventions for prevention of weight gain in people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic-induced weight gain is an extremely common problem in people with schizophrenia and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Adjunctive pharmacological interventions may be necessary to help manage antipsychotic-induced weight gain. This review splits and updates a previous Cochrane Review that focused on both pharmacological and behavioural approaches to this problem.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for preventing antipsychotic-induced weight gain in people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Schizophrenia Information Specialist searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's Register of Trials on 10 February 2021. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined any adjunctive pharmacological intervention for preventing weight gain in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses who use antipsychotic medications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. For continuous outcomes, we combined mean differences (MD) in endpoint and change data in the analysis. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to judge certainty of evidence and create summary of findings tables. The primary outcomes for this review were clinically important change in weight, clinically important change in body mass index (BMI), leaving the study early, compliance with treatment, and frequency of nausea. The included studies rarely reported these outcomes, so, post hoc, we added two new outcomes, average endpoint/change in weight and average endpoint/change in BMI.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs, with a total of 1388 participants, met the inclusion criteria for the review. Five studies investigated metformin, three topiramate, three H2 antagonists, three monoamine modulators, and one each investigated monoamine modulators plus betahistine, melatonin and samidorphan. The comparator in all studies was placebo or no treatment (i.e. standard care alone). We synthesised all studies in a quantitative meta-analysis. Most studies inadequately reported their methods of allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel. The resulting risk of bias and often small sample sizes limited the overall certainty of the evidence. Only one reboxetine study reported the primary outcome, number of participants with clinically important change in weight. Fewer people in the treatment condition experienced weight gains of more than 5% and more than 7% of their bodyweight than those in the placebo group (> 5% weight gain RR 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.65; 1 study, 43 participants; > 7% weight gain RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.83; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the primary outcomes, 'clinically important change in BMI', or 'compliance with treatment'. However, several studies reported 'average endpoint/change in body weight' or 'average endpoint/change in BMI'. Metformin may be effective in preventing weight gain (MD -4.03 kg, 95% CI -5.78 to -2.28; 4 studies, 131 participants; low-certainty evidence); and BMI increase (MD -1.63 kg/m2, 95% CI -2.96 to -0.29; 5 studies, 227 participants; low-certainty evidence). Other agents that may be slightly effective in preventing weight gain include H2 antagonists such as nizatidine, famotidine and ranitidine (MD -1.32 kg, 95% CI -2.09 to -0.56; 3 studies, 248 participants; low-certainty evidence) and monoamine modulators such as reboxetine and fluoxetine (weight: MD -1.89 kg, 95% CI -3.31 to -0.47; 3 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI: MD -0.66 kg/m2, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.26; 3 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Topiramate did not appear effective in preventing weight gain (MD -4.82 kg, 95% CI -9.99 to 0.35; 3 studies, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For all agents, there was no difference between groups in terms of individuals leaving the study or reports of nausea. However, the results of these outcomes are uncertain given the very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty evidence to suggest that metformin may be effective in preventing weight gain. Interpretation of this result and those for other agents, is limited by the small number of studies, small sample size, and short study duration. In future, we need studies that are adequately powered and with longer treatment durations to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for managing weight gain.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy reduction versus polypharmacy continuation for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In clinical practice, different antipsychotics can be combined in the treatment of people with schizophrenia (polypharmacy). This strategy can aim at increasing efficacy, but might also increase the adverse effects due to drug-drug interactions. Reducing polypharmacy by withdrawing one or more antipsychotics may reduce this problem, but must be done carefully, in order to maintain efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects and safety of reducing antipsychotic polypharmacy compared to maintaining people with schizophrenia on the same number of antipsychotics.

SEARCH METHODS

On 10 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared reduction in the number of antipsychotics to continuation of the current number of antipsychotics. We included adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving more than one antipsychotic and were stabilised on their current treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all the identified references for inclusion, and all the full papers. We contacted study authors if we needed any further information. Two review authors independently extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcomes were: quality of life assessed as number of participants with clinically important change in quality of life; service use assessed as number of participants readmitted to hospital and adverse effects assessed with number of participants leaving the study early due to adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 319 participants. Study duration ranged from three months to one year. All studies compared polypharmacy continuation with two antipsychotics to polypharmacy reduction to one antipsychotic.  We assessed the risk of bias of results as being of some concern or at high risk of bias. A lower number of participants left the study early due to any reason in the polypharmacy continuation group (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.68; I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, n = 319; low-certainty evidence), and a lower number of participants left the study early due to inefficacy (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.65; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, n = 201).  Polypharmacy continuation resulted in more severe negative symptoms (MD 3.30, 95% CI 1.51 to 5.09; 1 RCT, n = 35). There was no clear difference between polypharmacy reduction and polypharmacy continuation on readmission to hospital, leaving the study early due to adverse effects, functioning, global state, general mental state and positive symptoms, number of participants with at least one adverse effect, weight gain and other specific adverse effects, mortality and cognition. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low or low across measured outcomes. No studies reported quality of life, days in hospital, relapse, depressive symptoms, behaviour and satisfaction with care. Due to lack of data, it was not possible to perform some planned sensitivity analyses, including one controlling for increasing the dose of the remaining antipsychotic. As a result, we do not know if the observed results might be influenced by adjustment of dose of remaining antipsychotic compound.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review summarises the latest evidence on polypharmacy continuation compared with polypharmacy reduction. Our results show that polypharmacy continuation might be associated with a lower number of participants leaving the study early, especially due to  inefficacy. However, the evidence is of low and very low certainty and the data analyses based on few study only, so that it is not possible to draw strong conclusions based on the results of the present review. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to investigate this important topic.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (group) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a disabling psychotic disorder characterised by positive symptoms of delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech and behaviour; and negative symptoms such as affective flattening and lack of motivation. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychological intervention that aims to change the way in which a person interprets and evaluates their experiences, helping them to identify and link feelings and patterns of thinking that underpin distress. CBT models targeting symptoms of psychosis (CBTp) have been developed for many mental health conditions including schizophrenia. CBTp has been suggested as a useful add-on therapy to medication for people with schizophrenia. While CBT for people with schizophrenia was mainly developed as an individual treatment, it is expensive and a group approach may be more cost-effective. Group CBTp can be defined as a group intervention targeting psychotic symptoms, based on the cognitive behavioural model. In group CBTp, people work collaboratively on coping with distressing hallucinations, analysing evidence for their delusions, and developing problem-solving and social skills. However, the evidence for effectiveness is far from conclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate efficacy and acceptability of group CBT applied to psychosis compared with standard care or other psychosocial interventions, for people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

On 10 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials allocating adults with schizophrenia to receive either group CBT for schizophrenia, compared with standard care, or any other psychosocial intervention (group or individual).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We complied with Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Where possible, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a summary of findings table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 24 studies (1900 participants). All studies compared group CBTp with treatments that a person with schizophrenia would normally receive in a standard mental health service (standard care) or any other psychosocial intervention (group or individual). None of the studies compared group CBTp with individual CBTp. Overall risk of bias within the trials was moderate to low. We found no studies reporting data for our primary outcome of clinically important change. With regard to numbers of participants leaving the study early, group CBTp has little or no effect compared to standard care or other psychosocial interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.59; studies = 13, participants = 1267; I2 = 9%; low-certainty evidence). Group CBTp may have some advantage over standard care or other psychosocial interventions for overall mental state at the end of treatment for endpoint scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total (MD -3.73, 95% CI -4.63 to -2.83; studies = 12, participants = 1036; I2 = 5%; low-certainty evidence). Group CBTp seems to have little or no effect on PANSS positive symptoms (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.40; studies =8, participants = 539; I2 = 0%) and on PANSS negative symptoms scores at the end of treatment (MD -0.73, 95% CI -1.68 to 0.21; studies = 9, participants = 768; I2 = 65%). Group CBTp seems to have an advantage over standard care or other psychosocial interventions on global functioning measured by Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; MD -3.61, 95% CI -6.37 to -0.84; studies = 5, participants = 254; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), Personal and Social Performance Scale (PSP; MD 3.30, 95% CI 2.00 to 4.60; studies = 1, participants = 100), and Social Disability Screening Schedule (SDSS; MD -1.27, 95% CI -2.46 to -0.08; studies = 1, participants = 116). Service use data were equivocal with no real differences between treatment groups for number of participants hospitalised (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.60; studies = 3, participants = 235; I2 = 34%). There was no clear difference between group CBTp and standard care or other psychosocial interventions endpoint scores on depression and quality of life outcomes, except for quality of life measured by World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (WHOQOL-BREF) Psychological domain subscale (MD -4.64, 95% CI -9.04 to -0.24; studies = 2, participants = 132; I2 = 77%). The studies did not report relapse or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Group CBTp appears to be no better or worse than standard care or other psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia in terms of leaving the study early, service use and general quality of life. Group CBTp seems to be more effective than standard care or other psychosocial interventions on overall mental state and global functioning scores. These results may not be widely applicable as each study had a low sample size. Therefore, no firm conclusions concerning the efficacy of group CBTp for people with schizophrenia can currently be made. More high-quality research, reporting useable and relevant data is needed.

Antipsychotics for schizophrenia spectrum disorders with catatonic symptoms

BACKGROUND

Whilst antipsychotics are the mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, there have been numerous attempts to identify biomarkers that can predict treatment response. One potential marker may be psychomotor abnormalities, including catatonic symptoms. Early studies suggested that catatonic symptoms predict poor treatment response, whilst anecdotal reports of rare adverse events have been invoked against antipsychotics. The efficacy and safety of antipsychotics in the treatment of this subtype of schizophrenia have rarely been studied in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of any single antipsychotic medication with another antipsychotic or with other pharmacological agents, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), other non-pharmacological neuromodulation therapies (e.g. transcranial magnetic stimulation), or placebo for treating positive, negative, and catatonic symptoms in people who have schizophrenia spectrum disorders with catatonic symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and WHO ICTRP, on 19 September 2021. There were no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We also manually searched reference lists from the included studies, and contacted study authors when relevant.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs comparing any single antipsychotic medication with another antipsychotic or with other pharmacological agents, ECT, other non-pharmacological neuromodulation therapies, or placebo for people who have schizophrenia spectrum disorders with catatonic symptoms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data, and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we planned to calculate risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate mean differences between groups and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies, and created a summary of findings table; however, we did not assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach because there was no quantitative evidence in the included study.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 53 identified reports, one RCT including 14 hospitalised adults with schizophrenia and catatonic symptoms met the inclusion criteria of the review. The study, which was conducted in India and lasted only three weeks, compared risperidone with ECT in people who did not respond to an initial lorazepam trial.   There were no usable data reported on the primary efficacy outcomes of clinically important changes in positive, negative, or catatonic symptoms. Whilst both study groups improved in catatonia scores on the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS), the ECT group showed significantly greater improvement at week 3 endpoint (mean +/- estimated standard deviation; 0.68 +/- 4.58; N = 8) than the risperidone group (6.04 +/- 4.58; N = 6; P = 0.035 of a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures originally conducted in the trial). Similarly, both groups improved on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores by week 3, but ECT showed significantly greater improvement in positive symptoms scores compared with risperidone (P = 0.04). However, data on BFCRS scores in the ECT group appeared to be skewed, and mean PANSS scores were not reported, thereby precluding further analyses of both BFCRS and PANSS data according to the protocol.  Although no cases of neuroleptic malignant syndrome were reported, extrapyramidal symptoms as a primary safety outcome were reported in three cases in the risperidone group. Conversely, headache (N = 6), memory loss (N = 4), and a prolonged seizure were reported in people receiving ECT. These adverse effects, which were assessed as specific for antipsychotics and ECT, respectively, were the only adverse effects reported in the study. However, the exact number of participants with adverse events was not clearly reported in both groups, precluding further analysis.  Our results were based only on a single study with a very small sample size, short duration of treatment, unclear or high risk of bias due to unclear randomisation methods, possible imbalance in baseline characteristics, skewed data, and selective reporting. Data on outcomes of general functioning, global state, quality of life, and service use, as well as data on specific phenomenology and duration of catatonic symptoms, were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found only one small, short-term trial suggesting that risperidone may improve catatonic and positive symptoms scale scores amongst people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and catatonic symptoms, but that ECT may result in greater improvement in the first three weeks of treatment. Due to small sample size, methodological shortcomings and brief duration of the study, as well as risk of bias, the evidence from this review is of very low quality. We are uncertain if these are true effects, limiting any conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence. No cases of neuroleptic malignant syndrome were reported, but we cannot rule out the risk of this or other rare adverse events in larger population samples.  High-quality trials continue to be necessary to differentiate treatments for people with symptoms of catatonia in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The lack of consensus on the psychopathology of catatonia remains a barrier to defining treatments for people with schizophrenia. Better understanding of the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics may clarify treatment for this unique subtype of schizophrenia.

Parenting interventions for people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

Around a third of people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness will be a parent. Both the parents and the children in this population are at increased risk of adverse outcomes due to parental mental illness. Parenting interventions are known to improve parenting skills and decrease child disruptive behaviour. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the evidence base for parenting interventions designed specifically for parents who have schizophrenia or related serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of parenting interventions for people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness.

SEARCH METHODS

On 10 February 2021 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on the following: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared parenting interventions with a control condition for people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness with a child between the ages of 0 and 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. We assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We only included one trial (n = 50), and it was not possible to extract any data because the authors did not provide any means and standard deviations for our outcomes of interest; they only reported whether outcomes were significant or not at the 0.05 level. Three domains of the trial were rated as having a high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The only included trial provided inconclusive evidence. There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations to people with schizophrenia (or related serious mental illness) or clinicians, or for policy changes. Although there is no RCT evidence, parenting interventions for people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness have been developed. Future research should test these in RCTs in order to improve the evidence base for this population.

Community Outpatient Psychotherapy Engagement Service for Self-harm (COPESS): a feasibility trial protocol

Background

People who self-harm are at high risk for future suicide and often suffer considerable emotional distress. Depression is common among people who self-harm and may be an underlying driver of self-harm behaviour. Self-harm is often repeated, and risk of repetition is highest immediately after an act of self-harm. Readily accessible brief talking therapies show promise in helping people who self-harm, but further evaluation of these approaches is needed. A brief talking therapy intervention for depression and self-harm has been designed for use in a community setting. This mixed methods feasibility study with repeated measures will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the Community Outpatient Psychological Engagement Service for Self-Harm (COPESS) for people with self-harm and depression in the community, compared to routine care.

Methods

Sixty participants with a history of self-harm within the last six months, who are also currently depressed, will be recruited to take part in a feasibility single-blind randomised controlled trial (RCT). Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive COPESS plus treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU alone. Recruitment will be via General Practitioners (GP) and self-referral. Assessment of feasibility and acceptability will be assessed via quantitative and qualitative methods including measures of recruitment and retention to the feasibility trial, participants’ experience of therapy, completion/completeness of outcome measures at relevant time-points and completion of a service use questionnaire.

Discussion

The results will indicate whether it is feasible to conduct a definitive full trial to determine whether COPESS is a clinically and cost effective intervention for people who self-harm in the community. Qualitative and quantitative data will in addition help identify potential strengths and/or challenges of implementing brief community-based interventions for people who self-harm.

Trial registration

NCT04191122 registered 9th December 2019.

Antidepressant treatment for postnatal depression

BACKGROUND

Depression is one of the most common morbidities of the postnatal period. It has been associated with adverse outcomes for women, children, the wider family and society as a whole. Treatment is with psychosocial interventions or antidepressant medication, or both. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of different antidepressants and to compare their effectiveness with placebo, treatment as usual or other forms of treatment. This is an update of a review last published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Common Mental Disorders's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in May 2020. We also searched international trials registries and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with depression during the first 12 months postpartum that compared antidepressant treatment (alone or in combination with another treatment) with any other treatment, placebo or treatment as usual.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the study reports. We requested missing information from study authors wherever possible. We sought data to allow an intention-to-treat analysis. Where we identified sufficient comparable studies we pooled data and conducted random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 RCTs (1016 women), the majority of which were from English-speaking, high-income countries; two were from middle-income countries. Women were recruited from a mix of community-based, primary care, maternity and outpatient settings. Most studies used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), with treatment duration ranging from 4 to 12 weeks. Meta-analysis showed that there may be a benefit of SSRIs over placebo in response (55% versus 43%; pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.66); remission (42% versus 27%; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.41); and reduced depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.05; 4 studies, 251 women), at 5 to 12 weeks' follow-up. We were unable to conduct meta-analysis for adverse events due to variation in the reporting of this between studies. There was no evidence of a difference between acceptability of SSRI and placebo (27% versus 27%; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.64; 4 studies; 233 women). The certainty of all the evidence for SSRIs was low or very low due to the small number of included studies and a number of potential sources of bias, including high rates of attrition. There was insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy of SSRIs compared with other classes of antidepressants and of antidepressants compared with other pharmacological interventions, complementary medicines, psychological and psychosocial interventions or treatment as usual. A substantial proportion of women experienced adverse effects but there was no evidence of differences in the number of adverse effects between treatment groups in any of the studies. Data on effects on children, including breastfed infants, parenting, and the wider family were limited, although no adverse effects were noted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There remains limited evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants in the management of postnatal depression, particularly for those with more severe depression. We found low-certainty evidence that SSRI antidepressants may be more effective in treating postnatal depression than placebo as measured by response and remission rates. However, the low certainty of the evidence suggests that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our effect estimate. There is a continued imperative to better understand whether, and for whom, antidepressants or other treatments are more effective for postnatal depression, and whether some antidepressants are more effective or better tolerated than others. In clinical practice, the findings of this review need to be contextualised by the extensive broader literature on antidepressants in the general population and perinatal clinical guidance, to inform an individualised risk-benefit clinical decision. Future RCTs should focus on larger samples, longer follow-up, comparisons with alternative treatment modalities and inclusion of child and parenting outcomes.

Video games for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Commercial video games are a vastly popular form of recreational activity. Whilst concerns persist regarding possible negative effects of video games, they have been suggested to provide cognitive benefits to users. They are also frequently employed as control interventions in comparisons of more complex cognitive or psychological interventions. If independently effective, video games - being both engaging and relatively inexpensive - could provide a much more cost-effective add-on intervention to standard treatment when compared to costly, cognitive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of video games (alone or as an additional intervention) compared to standard care alone or other interventions including, but not limited to, cognitive remediation or cognitive behavioural therapy for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (March 2017, August 2018, August 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials focusing on video games for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors extracted data independently. For binary outcomes we calculated risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes seven trials conducted between 2009 and 2018 (total = 468 participants, range 32 to 121). Study duration varied from six weeks to twelve weeks. All interventions in the included trials were given in addition to standard care, including prescribed medication. In trials video games tend to be the control for testing efficacy of complex, cognitive therapies; only two small trials evaluated commercial video games as the intervention. We categorised video game interventions into 'non-exergame' (played statically) and 'exergame' (the players use bodily movements to control the game). Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important changes in: general functioning, cognitive functioning, social functioning, mental state, quality of life, and physical fitness as well as clinically important adverse effects. We found no clear difference between non-exergames and cognitive remediation in general functioning scores (Strauss Carpenter Outcome Scale) (MD 0.42, 95% CI -0.62 to 1.46; participants = 86; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or social functioning scores (Specific Levels of Functioning Scale) (MD -3.13, 95% CI -40.17 to 33.91; participants = 53; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There was a clear difference favouring cognitive remediation for cognitive functioning (improved on at least one domain of MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery Test) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99; participants = 42; studies = 1, low-quality evidence). For mental state, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) overall scores showed no clear difference between treatment groups (MD 0.20, 95% CI -3.89 to 4.28; participants = 269; studies = 4, low-quality evidence). Quality of life ratings (Quality of Life Scale) similarly showed no clear intergroup difference (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.42; participants = 87; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported; we chose leaving the study early as a proxy measure. The attrition rate by end of treatment was similar between treatment groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.06; participants = 395; studies = 5, low-quality evidence). One small trial compared exergames with standard care, but few outcomes were reported. No clear difference between interventions was seen for cognitive functioning (measured by MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery Test) (MD 2.90, 95% CI -1.27 to 7.07; participants = 33; studies = 1, low-quality evidence), however a benefit in favour of exergames was found for average change in physical fitness (aerobic fitness) (MD 3.82, 95% CI 1.75 to 5.89; participants = 33; studies = 1, low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported; we chose leaving the study early as a proxy measure. The attrition rate by end of treatment was similar between treatment groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.51; participants = 33; studies = 1). Another small trial compared exergames with non-exergames. Only one of our main outcomes was reported - physical fitness, which was measured by average time taken to walk 3 metres. No clear intergroup difference was identified at six-week follow-up (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.17; participants = 28; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). No trials reported adverse effects. We chose leaving the study early as a proxy outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that non-exergames may have a less beneficial effect on cognitive functioning than cognitive remediation, but have comparable effects for all other outcomes. These data are from a small number of trials, and the evidence is graded as of low or very low quality and is very likely to change with more data. It is difficult to currently establish if the more sophisticated cognitive approaches do any more good - or harm - than 'static' video games for people with schizophrenia. Where players use bodily movements to control the game (exergames), there is very limited evidence suggesting a possible benefit of exergames compared to standard care in terms of cognitive functioning and aerobic fitness. However, this finding must be replicated in trials with a larger sample size and that are conducted over a longer time frame. We cannot draw any firm conclusions regarding the effects of video games until more high-quality evidence is available. There are ongoing studies that may provide helpful data in the near future.

Specialised early intervention teams (extended time) for recent-onset psychosis

BACKGROUND

Psychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted effect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with FEP and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.' Specialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced, a recent-onset psychosis. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. Evidence suggests that once SEI treatment ends, improvements may not be sustained, bringing uncertainty about the optimal duration of SEI to ensure the best long-term outcomes. Extending SEI has been proposed as a way of providing continued intensive treatment and continuity of care, of usually up to five years, in order to a) sustain the positive initial outcomes of SEI; and b) improve the long-term trajectory of the illness.

OBJECTIVES

To compare extended SEI teams with treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis. To compare extended SEI teams with standard SEI teams followed by TAU (standard SEI + TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

On 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extended SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis and all RCTs comparing extended SEI with standard SEI + TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting usable data as included studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs, with a total 780 participants, aged 16 to 35 years. All participants met the criteria for schizophrenia spectrum disorders or affective psychoses. No trials compared extended SEI with TAU. All three trials randomly allocated people approximately two years into standard SEI to either extended SEI or standard SEI + TAU. The certainty of evidence for outcomes varied from low to very low. Our primary outcomes were recovery and disengagement from mental health services. No trials reported on recovery, and we used remission as a proxy. Three trials reported on remission, with the point estimate suggesting a 13% increase in remission in favour of extended SEI, but this included wide confidence intervals (CIs) and a very uncertain estimate of no benefit (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.31; 3 trials, 780 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two trials provided data on disengagement from services with evidence that extended SEI care may result in fewer disengagements from mental health treatment (15%) in comparison to standard SEI + TAU (34%) (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75; 2 trials, 380 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in rates of psychiatric hospital admission (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.52; 1 trial, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence), or the number of days spent in a psychiatric hospital (MD -2.70, 95% CI -8.30 to 2.90; 1 trial, 400 participants; low-certainty evidence). One trial found uncertain evidence regarding lower global psychotic symptoms in extended SEI in comparison to standard SEI + TAU (MD -1.90, 95% CI -3.28 to -0.52; 1 trial, 156 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether the use of extended SEI over standard SEI + TAU resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality, as so few deaths were recorded in trials (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.64; 3 trials, 780 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very uncertain evidence suggests that using extended SEI instead of standard SEI + TAU may not improve global functioning (SMD 0.23, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.76; 2 trials, 560 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was low risk of bias in all three trials for random sequence generation, allocation concealment and other biases. All three trials had high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention. For the risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessments and incomplete outcome data there was at least one trial with high or unclear risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There may be preliminary evidence of benefit from extending SEI team care for treating people experiencing psychosis, with fewer people disengaging from mental health services. Evidence regarding other outcomes was uncertain. The certainty of evidence for the measured outcomes was low or very low. Further, suitably powered studies that use a consistent approach to outcome selection are needed, but with only one further ongoing trial, there is unlikely to be any definitive conclusion for the effectiveness of extended SEI for at least the next few years.

Specialised early intervention teams for recent-onset psychosis

BACKGROUND

Psychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted effect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with first episode psychosis (FEP) and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.' Specialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced a recent-onset psychosis. The purpose of SEI teams is to intensively treat people with psychosis early in the course of the illness with the goal of increasing the likelihood of recovery and reducing the need for longer-term mental health treatment. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, and occupational, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. A previous Cochrane Review of SEI found preliminary evidence that SEI may be superior to standard community mental health care (described as 'treatment as usual (TAU)' in this review) but these recommendations were based on data from only one trial. This review updates the evidence for the use of SEI services.

OBJECTIVES

To compare specialised early intervention (SEI) teams to treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

On 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting useable data as included studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs and one cluster-RCT with a total of 1145 participants. The mean age in the trials was between 23.1 years (RAISE) and 26.6 years (OPUS). The included participants were 405 females (35.4%) and 740 males (64.6%). All trials took place in community mental healthcare settings. Two trials reported on recovery from psychosis at the end of treatment, with evidence that SEI team care may result in more participants in recovery than TAU at the end of treatment (73% versus 52%; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.97; 2 studies, 194 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three trials provided data on disengagement from services at the end of treatment, with fewer participants probably being disengaged from mental health services in SEI (8%) in comparison to TAU (15%) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; 3 studies, 630 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer admissions to psychiatric hospital than TAU at the end of treatment (52% versus 57%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 4 studies, 1145 participants) and low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer psychiatric hospital days (MD -27.00 days, 95% CI -53.68 to -0.32; 1 study, 547 participants). Two trials reported on general psychotic symptoms at the end of treatment, with no evidence of a difference between SEI and TAU, although this evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -4.58 to 3.75; 2 studies, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A different pattern was observed in assessment of general functioning with an end of trial difference that may favour SEI (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66; 2 studies, 467 participants; low-certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether the use of SEI resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality at end of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.20; 3 studies, 741 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment in three of the four included trials; the remaining trial had unclear risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention, we considered all trials at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Two trials had low risk of bias and two trials had high risk of bias for blinding of outcomes assessments. Three trials had low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, while one trial had high risk of bias. Two trials had low risk of bias, one trial had high risk of bias, and one had unclear risk of bias for selective reporting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that SEI may provide benefits to service users during treatment compared to TAU. These benefits probably include fewer disengagements from mental health services (moderate-certainty evidence), and may include small reductions in psychiatric hospitalisation (low-certainty evidence), and a small increase in global functioning (low-certainty evidence) and increased service satisfaction (moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence regarding the effect of SEI over TAU after treatment has ended is uncertain. Further evidence investigating the longer-term outcomes of SEI is needed. Furthermore, all the eligible trials included in this review were conducted in high-income countries, and it is unclear whether these findings would translate to low- and middle-income countries, where both the intervention and the comparison conditions may be different.

Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The symptoms and signs of schizophrenia have been linked to high levels of dopamine in specific areas of the brain (limbic system). Antipsychotic drugs block the transmission of dopamine in the brain and reduce the acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotic drugs are also effective for relapse prevention. This is the updated version of the aforesaid review.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of maintaining antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia compared to withdrawing these agents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including the registries of clinical trials (12 November 2008, 10 October 2017, 3 July 2018, 11 September 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs and placebo 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 (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), again based on a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 75 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 9145 participants comparing antipsychotic medication with placebo. The trials were published from 1959 to 2017 and their size ranged between 14 and 420 participants. In many studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. However, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias gave similar results. Although this and other potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at seven to 12 months (primary outcome; drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.45, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation was also reduced, however, the baseline risk was lower (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57, NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 14; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the placebo group than in the antipsychotic drug group left the studies early due to any reason (at seven to 12 months: drug 36% versus placebo 62%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65, NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; high-certainty evidence) and due to inefficacy of treatment (at seven to 12 months: drug 18% versus placebo 46%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.44, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 4). Quality of life might be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573 SMD -0.32, 95% CI to -0.57 to -0.07; low-certainty evidence); probably the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Underpowered data revealed no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcome 'Death due to suicide' (drug 0.04% versus placebo 0.1%, 19 RCTs, n = 4634, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.97,low-certainty evidence) and for the number of participants in employment (at 9 to 15 months, drug 39% versus placebo 34%, 3 RCTs, n = 593, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41, low certainty evidence). Antipsychotic drugs (as a group and irrespective of duration) were associated with more participants experiencing movement disorders (e.g. at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.85, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 20, 95% CI 14 to 50), sedation (drug 8% versus placebo 5%, 18 RCTs, n = 4078, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.86, NNTH 50, 95% CI not significant), and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH 25, 95% CI 20 to 50).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs prevents relapse to a much greater extent than placebo for approximately up to two years of follow-up. This effect must be weighed against the adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs. Future studies should better clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality associated with these drugs.

Psychological interventions for psychosis in adolescents

BACKGROUND

Psychosis is an illness characterised by alterations in thoughts and perceptions resulting in delusions and hallucinations. Psychosis is rare in adolescents but can have serious consequences. Antipsychotic medications are the mainstay treatment, and have been shown to be effective. However, there is emerging evidence on psychological interventions such as cognitive remediation therapy, psycho-education, family therapy and group psychotherapy that may be useful for adolescents with psychosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of various psychological interventions for adolescents with psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's study-based Register of Trials including clinical trials registries (latest, 8 March 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing various psychological interventions with treatment-as-usual or other psychological treatments for adolescents with psychosis. For analyses, we included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently and reliably screened studies and we assessed risk of bias of the included studies. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we used mean differences (MDs) and the 95% CIs. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The current review includes 7 studies (n = 319) assessing a heterogenous group of psychological interventions with variable risk of bias. Adverse events were not reported by any of the studies. None of the studies was sponsored by industry. Below, we summarise the main results from four of six comparisons, and the certainty of these results (based on GRADE). All scale scores are average endpoint scores. Cognitive Remediation Therapy (CRT) + Treatment-as-Usual (TAU) versus TAU Two studies compared adding CRT to participants' TAU with TAU alone. Global state (CGAS, high = good) was reported by one study. There was no clear difference between treatment groups (MD -4.90, 95% CI -11.05 to 1.25; participants = 50; studies = 1, very low-certainty). Mental state (PANSS, high = poor) was reported by one study. Scores were clearly lower in the TAU group (MD 8.30, 95% CI 0.46 to 16.14; participants = 50; studies = 1; very low-certainty). Clearly more participants in the CRT group showed improvement in cognitive functioning (Memory digit span test) compared to numbers showing improvement in the TAU group (1 study, n = 31, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.89; very low-certainty). For global functioning (VABS, high = good), our analysis of reported scores showed no clear difference between treatment groups (MD 5.90, 95% CI -3.03 to 14.83; participants = 50; studies = 1; very low-certainty). The number of participants leaving the study early from each group was similar (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.71; participants = 91; studies = 2; low-certainty). Group Psychosocial Therapy (GPT) + TAU versus TAU One study assessed the effects of adding GPT to participants' usual medication. Global state scores (CGAS, high = good) were clearly higher in the GPT group (MD 5.10, 95% CI 1.35 to 8.85; participants = 56; studies = 1; very low-certainty) but there was little or no clear difference between groups for mental state scores (PANSS, high = poor, MD -4.10, 95% CI -8.28 to 0.08; participants = 56; studies = 1, very low-certainty) and no clear difference between groups for numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.28; participants = 56; studies = 1; very low-certainty). Cognitive Remediation Programme (CRP) + Psychoeducational Treatment Programme (PTP) versus PTP One study assessed the effects of combining two types psychological interventions (CRP + PTP) with PTP alone. Global state scores (GAS, high = good) were not clearly different (MD 1.60, 95% CI -6.48 to 9.68; participants = 25; studies = 1; very low-certainty), as were mental state scores (BPRS total, high = poor, MD -5.40, 95% CI -16.42 to 5.62; participants = 24; studies = 1; very low-certainty), and cognitive functioning scores (SPAN-12, high = good, MD 2.40, 95% CI -2.67 to 7.47; participants = 25; studies = 1; very low-certainty). Psychoeducational (PE) + Multifamily Treatment (MFT) Versus Nonstructured Group Therapy (NSGT, all long-term) One study compared (PE + MFT) with NSGT. Analysis of reported global state scores (CGAS, high = good, MD 3.38, 95% CI -4.87 to 11.63; participants = 49; studies = 1; very low-certainty) and mental state scores (PANSS total, high = poor, MD -8.23, 95% CI -17.51 to 1.05; participants = 49; studies = 1; very low-certainty) showed no clear differences. The number of participants needing hospital admission (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.96; participants = 49; studies = 1) and the number of participants leaving the study early from each group were also similar (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.60; participants = 55; studies = 1; low-certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most of our estimates of effect for our main outcomes are equivocal. An effect is suggested for only four outcomes in the SOF tables presented. Compared to TAU, CRT may have a positive effect on cognitive functioning, however the same study reports data suggesting TAU may have positive effect on mental state. Another study comparing GPT with TAU reports data suggesting GPT may have a positive effect on global state. However, the estimate of effects for all the main outcomes in our review should be viewed with considerable caution as they are based on data from a small number of studies with variable risk of bias. Further data could change these results and larger and better quality studies are needed before any firm conclusions regarding the effects of psychological interventions for adolescents with psychosis can be made.

Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve satisfactory improvements in their mental state, particularly the symptom of hearing voices (hallucinations), with medical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

In December 2016, November 2018 and April 2019, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including registries of clinical trials) was searched, review authors checked references of all identified relevant reports to identify more studies and contacted authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials focusing on Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CIs. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in; mental state, insight, global state, quality of life and functioning as well as adverse effects and leaving the study early.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 14 potentially relevant references for three studies (participants = 195) comparing Avatar Therapy with two other interventions; treatment as usual or supportive counselling. Both Avatar Therapy and supportive counselling were given in addition (add-on) to the participants' normal care. All of the studies had high risk of bias across one or more domains for methodology and, for other risks of bias, authors from one of the studies were involved in the development of the avatar systems on trial and in another trial, authors had patents on the avatar system pending. 1. Avatar Therapy compared with treatment as usual When Avatar Therapy was compared with treatment as usual average endpoint Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Positive (PANSS-P) scores were not different between treatment groups (MD -1.93, 95% CI -5.10 to 1.24; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). A measure of insight (Revised Beliefs about Voices Questionnaire; BAVQ-R) showed an effect in favour of Avatar Therapy (MD -5.97, 95% CI -10.98 to -0.96; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). No one was rehospitalised in either group in the short term (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.20; studies = 1, participants = 19; low-certainty evidence). Numbers leaving the study early from each group were not clearly different - although more did leave from the Avatar Therapy group (6/14 versus 0/12; RR 11.27, 95% CI 0.70 to 181.41; studies = 1, participants = 26; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in anxiety between treatment groups (RR 5.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 89.80; studies = 1, participants = 19; low-certainty evidence). For quality of life, average Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (QLESQ-SF) scores favoured Avatar Therapy (MD 9.99, 95% CI 3.89 to 16.09; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported data for functioning. 2. Avatar Therapy compared with supportive counselling When Avatar Therapy was compared with supportive counselling (all short-term), general mental state (Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale (PSYRATS)) scores favoured the Avatar Therapy group (MD -4.74, 95% CI -8.01 to -1.47; studies = 1, participants = 124; low-certainty evidence). For insight (BAVQ-R), there was a small effect in favour of Avatar Therapy (MD -8.39, 95% CI -14.31 to -2.47; studies = 1, participants = 124; low-certainty evidence). Around 20% of each group left the study early (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.89; studies = 1, participants = 150; moderate-certainty evidence). Analysis of quality of life scores (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA)) showed no clear difference between groups (MD 2.69, 95% CI -1.48 to 6.86; studies = 1, participants = 120; low-certainty evidence). No data were available for rehospitalisation rates, adverse events or functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses of available data shows few, if any, consistent effects of Avatar Therapy for people living with schizophrenia who experience auditory hallucinations. Where there are effects, or suggestions of effects, we are uncertain because of their risk of bias and their unclear clinical meaning. The theory behind Avatar Therapy is compelling but the practice needs testing in large, long, well-designed, well-reported randomised trials undertaken with help from - but not under the direction of - Avatar Therapy pioneers.

Topical azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc and fruit acid (alpha-hydroxy acid) for acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the topical acne treatments azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc, and alpha-hydroxy acid is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical treatments (azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, zinc, alpha-hydroxy acid, and sulphur) for acne.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical randomised controlled trials of the six topical treatments compared with other topical treatments, placebo, or no treatment in people with acne.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Key outcomes included participants' global self-assessment of acne improvement (PGA), withdrawal for any reason, minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event), and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 49 trials (3880 reported participants) set in clinics, hospitals, research centres, and university settings in Europe, Asia, and the USA. The vast majority of participants had mild to moderate acne, were aged between 12 to 30 years (range: 10 to 45 years), and were female. Treatment lasted over eight weeks in 59% of the studies. Study duration ranged from three months to three years. We assessed 26 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain, but most domains were at low or unclear risk of bias. We grouped outcome assessment into short-term (less than or equal to 4 weeks), medium-term (from 5 to 8 weeks), and long-term treatment (more than 8 weeks). The following results were measured at the end of treatment, which was mainly long-term for the PGA outcome and mixed length (medium-term mainly) for minor adverse events. Azelaic acid In terms of treatment response (PGA), azelaic acid is probably less effective than benzoyl peroxide (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.95; 1 study, 351 participants), but there is probably little or no difference when comparing azelaic acid to tretinoin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 289 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in PGA when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.38; 1 study, 229 participants; low-quality evidence), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence indicates there may be no differences in rates of withdrawal for any reason when comparing azelaic acid with benzoyl peroxide (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.29; 1 study, 351 participants), clindamycin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.56; 2 studies, 329 participants), or tretinoin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; 2 studies, 309 participants), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). In terms of total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is a difference between azelaic acid compared to adapalene (1 study; 55 participants) or benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 30 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). There may be no difference when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.35; 1 study, 100 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the comparison of azelaic acid versus tretinoin, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling. Salicylic acid For PGA, there may be little or no difference between salicylic acid and tretinoin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 1 study, 46 participants; low-quality evidence); we are not certain whether there is a difference between salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (1 study, 86 participants; very low-quality evidence); and PGA was not measured in the comparison of salicylic acid versus benzoyl peroxide. There may be no difference between groups in withdrawals when comparing salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; 1 study, 86 participants); when salicylic acid was compared to tretinoin, neither group had withdrawals (both based on low-quality evidence (2 studies, 74 participants)). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in withdrawals between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants; very low-quality evidence). For total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is any difference between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants) or tretinoin (2 studies, 74 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). This outcome was not reported for salicylic acid versus pyruvic acid, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling and redness. Nicotinamide Four studies evaluated nicotinamide against clindamycin or erythromycin, but none measured PGA. Low-quality evidence showed there may be no difference in withdrawals between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.60; 3 studies, 216 participants) or erythromycin (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.22; 1 study, 158 participants), or in total minor adverse events between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; 3 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the nicotinamide versus erythromycin comparison. Alpha-hydroxy (fruit) acid There may be no difference in PGA when comparing glycolic acid peel to salicylic-mandelic acid peel (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; 1 study, 40 participants; low-quality evidence), and we are uncertain if there is a difference in total minor adverse events due to very low-quality evidence (1 study, 44 participants). Neither group had withdrawals (2 studies, 84 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to benzoyl peroxide, azelaic acid probably leads to a worse treatment response, measured using PGA. When compared to tretinoin, azelaic acid probably makes little or no difference to treatment response. For other comparisons and outcomes the quality of evidence was low or very low. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence in the evidence. We encourage the comparison of more methodologically robust head-to-head trials against commonly used active drugs.

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

The Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (2 May 2018), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific databases.

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

Review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. Where meta-analyses were possible, 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

Our review now includes 41 trials with a total of 4024 participants. We have identified nine comparisons within the included trials and present a summary of our main findings for seven of these below. We were unable to summarise many 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 quality due to high or unclear risks of bias because of poor trial methods, or inadequately reported methods, and imprecision due to small sample sizes, low event rates and wide confidence intervals. 1. Integrated models of care versus standard care (36 months) No clear differences were found between treatment groups for loss to treatment (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; participants = 603; studies = 3; low-quality evidence), death (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.57; participants = 421; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), alcohol use (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56; participants = 143; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), substance use (drug) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25; participants = 85; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), global assessment of functioning (GAF) scores (MD 0.40, 95% CI -2.47 to 3.27; participants = 170; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), or general life satisfaction (QOLI) scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.38; participants = 373; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). 2. Non-integrated models of care versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at 12 months (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; participants = 134; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). 3. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.86; participants = 152; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), cannabis use at six months (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.15; participants = 47; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or mental state insight (IS) scores by three months (MD 0.52, 95% CI -0.78 to 1.82; participants = 105; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). 4. Contingency management versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.11; participants = 255; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence), number of stimulant positive urine tests at six months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06; participants = 176; studies = 1) or hospitalisations (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.93; participants = 176; studies = 1); both low-quality evidence. 5. Motivational interviewing (MI) versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at six months (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.64; participants = 62; studies = 1). A clear difference, favouring MI, was observed for abstaining from alcohol (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; participants = 28; studies = 1) but not other substances (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.42; participants = 89; studies = 1), and no differences were observed in mental state general severity (SCL-90-R) scores (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.21; participants = 30; studies = 1). All very low-quality evidence. 6. Skills training versus standard care At 12 months, there were no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 10.10; participants = 122; studies = 3) or death (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.42; participants = 121; studies = 1). Very low-quality, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 7. CBT + MI versus standard care At 12 months, there was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.59; participants = 327; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), number of deaths (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.76; participants = 603; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), relapse (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04; participants = 36; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence), or GAF scores (MD 1.24, 95% CI -1.86 to 4.34; participants = 445; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear difference in reduction of drug use by six months (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.60; participants = 119; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 41 RCTs but were unable to use much data for analyses. There is currently no high-quality evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over standard care for important outcomes such as remaining in treatment, reduction in substance use or improving mental or global state in people with serious mental illnesses and substance misuse. 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.

Modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders

BACKGROUND

People with schizophrenia have a range of different symptoms, including positive symptoms (hallucinations and delusions), negative symptoms (such as social withdrawal and lack of affect), and cognitive impairment. The standard medication for people with schizophrenia is antipsychotics. However, these medications may not be effective for all symptoms of schizophrenia, as cognitive and negative symptoms are usually hard to treat. Additional therapies or medications are available for the management of these symptoms. Modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting agent most frequently used in narcolepsy or shift work sleep disorder, is one intervention that is theorised to have an effect of these symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the effects of modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

On 27 April 2015, 24 May 2017, and 31 October 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for the inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials comparing modafinil with placebo or other treatments for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from the included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis. We used GRADE to complete a 'Summary of findings' table and assessed risk of bias for the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies including a total of 422 participants contributed to data analyses. Most studies had a small population size (average 38 people per study) and were of short duration. We also detected a high risk of bias for selective outcome reporting in just under 50% of the trials. We therefore rated the overall methodological quality of the included studies as low. We considered seven main outcomes of interest: clinically important change in overall mental state, clinically important change in cognitive functioning, incidence of a clinically important adverse effect/event, clinically important change in global state, leaving the study early for any reason, clinically important change in quality of life, and hospital admission. All studies assessed the effects of adding modafinil to participants' usual antipsychotic treatment compared to adding placebo to usual antipsychotic treatment. Six studies found that adding modafinil to antipsychotic treatment may have little or no effect on overall mental state of people with schizophrenia, specifically the risk of worsening psychosis (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.98; participants = 209; studies = 6, low-quality evidence). Regarding the effect of modafinil on cognitive function, the trials did not report clinically important change data, but one study reported endpoint scores on the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB): in this study we found no clear difference in scores between modafinil and placebo treatment groups (MD -3.10, 95% CI -10.9 to 4.7; participants = 48; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Only one study (N = 35) reported adverse effect/event data. In this study one serious adverse event occurred in each group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.42; participants = 35; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). One study measured change in global state using the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement Scale. This study found that adding modafinil to antipsychotic treatment may have little or no effect on global state (RR 6.36, 95% CI 0.94 to 43.07, participants = 21; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Nine studies found that modafinil has no effect on numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.52 participants = 357; studies = 9, moderate-quality evidence). None of the trials reported clinically important change in quality of life, but one study did report quality of life using endpoint scores on the Quality of Life Inventory, finding no clear difference between treatment groups (MD -0.2, 95% CI -1.18 to 0.78; participants = 20; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Finally, one study reported data for number of participants needing hospitalisation: one participant in each group was hospitalised (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.42; participants = 35; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to methodological issues, low sample size, and short duration of the clinical trials as well as high risk of bias for outcome reporting, most of the evidence available for this review is of very low or low quality. For results where quality is low or very low, we are uncertain or very uncertain if the effect estimates are true effects, limiting our conclusions. Specifically, we found that modafinil is no better or worse than placebo at preventing worsening of psychosis; however, we are uncertain about this result. We have more confidence that participants receiving modafinil are no more likely to leave a trial early than participants receiving placebo. However, we are very uncertain about the remaining equivocal results between modafinil and placebo for outcomes such as improvement in global state or cognitive function, incidence of adverse events, and changes in quality of life. More high-quality data are needed before firm conclusions regarding the effects of modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders can be made.

Treatments for primary delusional infestation

BACKGROUND

Primary delusional infestation (DI) is a primary psychiatric disorder characterised by delusions and abnormal tactile sensations. The pathophysiology is undecided and treatment includes both pharmacological and non-pharmacological options. There is currently no Cochrane Review of the treatments used. Primary DI is a diagnosis often encountered by both dermatologists and psychiatrists, with a large associated disease burden.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different treatments in primary delusional infestation (DI).

SEARCH METHODS

On 24 December 2014 and 19 March 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving the treatment of adults with primary DI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any studies for inclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no evidence from RCTs available to compare treatment of primary DI with placebo. We cannot, therefore, make any conclusions regarding the effects of treatments (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) for primary DI. This lack of evidence for treatment of primary DI has implications for research and practice. Robust randomised trials are indicated.

Interventions for prodromal stage of psychosis

BACKGROUND

Psychosis is a serious mental condition characterised by a loss of contact with reality. There may be a prodromal period or stage of psychosis, where early signs of symptoms indicating onset of first episode psychosis (FEP) occur. A number of services, incorporating multimodal treatment approaches (pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy and psychosocial interventions), developed worldwide, now focus on this prodromal period with the aim of preventing psychosis in people at risk of developing FEP.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective is to assess the safety and efficacy of early interventions for people in the prodromal stage of psychosis. The secondary objective is, if possible, to compare the effectiveness of the various different interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based Register of studies (including trials registers) on 8 June 2016 and 4 August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for participants older than 12 years, who had developed a prodromal stage of psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies with 2151 participants. The studies analysed 13 different comparisons. Group A comparisons explored the absolute effects of the experimental intervention. Group B were comparisons within which we could not be clear whether differential interactive effects were also ongoing. Group C comparisons explored differential effects between clearly distinct treatments. A key outcome for this review was 'transition to psychosis'. For details of other main outcomes please see 'Summary of findings' tables. In Group A (comparisons of absolute effects) we found no clear difference between amino acids and placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.48 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 2.98; 2 RCTs, 52 participants; very low-quality evidence). When omega-3 fatty acids were compared to placebo, fewer participants given the omega-3 (10%) transitioned to psychosis compared to the placebo group (33%) during long-term follow-up of seven years (RR 0.24 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 81 participants; low-quality evidence). In Group B (comparisons where complex interactions are probable) and in the subgroup focusing on antipsychotic drugs added to specific care packages, the amisulpiride + needs-focused intervention (NFI) compared to NFI comparison (no reporting of transition to psychosis; 1 RCT, 102 participants; very low-quality evidence) and the olanzapine + supportive intervention compared to supportive intervention alone comparison (RR 0.58 95% CI 0.28 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 60 participants; very low-quality evidence) showed no clear differences between groups. In the second Group B subgroup (cognitive behavioural therapies (CBT)), when CBT + supportive therapy was compared with supportive therapy alone around 8% of participants allocated to the combination of CBT and supportive therapy group transitioned to psychosis during follow-up by 18 months, compared with double that percentage in the supportive therapy alone group (RR 0.45 95% CI 0.23 to 0.89; 2 RCTs, 252 participants; very low-quality evidence). The CBT + risperidone versus CBT + placebo comparison identified no clear difference between treatments (RR 1.02 95% CI 0.39 to 2.67; 1 RCT, 87 participants; very low-quality evidence) and this also applies to the CBT + needs-based intervention (NBI) + risperidone versus NBI comparison (RR 0.75 95% CI 0.39 to 1.46; 1 RCT, 59 participants; very low-quality evidence). Group C (differential effects) also involved six comparisons. The first compared CBT with supportive therapy. No clear difference was found for the 'transition to psychosis' outcome (RR 0.74 95% CI 0.28 to 1.98; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-quality evidence). The second subgroup compared CBT + supportive intervention was compared with a NBI + supportive intervention, again, data were equivocal, few and of very low quality (RR 6.32 95% CI 0.34 to 117.09; 1 RCT, 57 participants). In the CBT + risperidone versus supportive therapy comparison, again there was no clear difference between groups (RR 0.76 95% CI 0.28 to 2.03; 1 RCT, 71 participants; very low-quality evidence). The three other comparisons in Group C demonstrated no clear differences between treatment groups. When cognitive training was compared to active control (tablet games) (no reporting of transition to psychosis; 1 RCT, 62 participants; very low quality data), family treatment compared with enhanced care comparison (RR 0.54 95% CI 0.18 to 1.59; 2 RCTs, 229 participants; very low-quality evidence) and integrated treatment compared to standard treatment comparison (RR 0.57 95% CI 0.28 to 1.15; 1 RCT, 79 participants; very low-quality evidence) no effects of any of these approaches was evident.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There has been considerable research effort in this area and several interventions have been trialled. The evidence available suggests that omega-3 fatty acids may prevent transition to psychosis but this evidence is low quality and more research is needed to confirm this finding. Other comparisons did not show any clear differences in effect for preventing transition to psychosis but again, the quality of this evidence is very low or low and not strong enough to make firm conclusions.

Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a serious chronic mental illness affecting an estimated 21 million people worldwide and there is increasing evidence linking inflammation in the brain to the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. Antipsychotic drugs are the conventional treatment for people with schizophrenia but are not always fully effective. Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with properties that inhibit the proinflammatory status of the brain. Using aspirin as an adjunct (add-on) treatment to antipsychotics or as a stand-alone treatment could be a novel, relatively inexpensive option for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) as adjunct (add-on) or as stand-alone treatment for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last search 8 March 2018) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PsycINFO and registries of Clinical Trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials focusing on aspirin for people with schizophrenia.

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 (ITT) 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 a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies, both comparing the effects of adding aspirin to standard antipsychotic treatment with adding placebo to standard antipsychotic treatment. We were hoping to find high-quality data for seven main outcomes of importance: clinically important change in global state, mental state, cognitive functioning and quality of life, numbers leaving the study early, incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and hospital admission. Clinically important change data were not reported. Global state data were reported by one study as 'unspecified problem necessitating change in dose or type of antipsychotics'; there was no clear difference between treatment groups for this outcome (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.88; studies = 1; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence). Both trials measured mental state using the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS), and mean total PANSS endpoint scores favoured the adjunct aspirin group in the medium term (MD -6.56, 95% CI -12.04 to -1.08; studies = 2; participants = 130; very low-quality evidence). Less than 10% of each group's participants left the studies early (for any reason) and by around three months there was no clear difference between numbers leaving early from the aspirin group compared to numbers leaving early from the placebo group suggesting aspirin is acceptable (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.14; studies = 2; participants = 130; very low-quality evidence). There was some gastric upset in both groups but rates were not clearly different between the treatment groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.94; studies = 1; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence). We are unclear if 'change in hospital status' is an unfavourable outcome or not as one study reported equivocal data (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.90; studies = 1; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence). It should be noted that all the above results were based on data of very low-quality and were difficult to interpret for clinicians or patients, and that the two studies, completed in the last decade, failed to report any usable outcomes on cognitive functioning or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We highlighted the evidence that some pioneering researchers feel this question is important enough to merit testing in randomised trials. However, we also highlighted that the evidence produced from these trials was weak and inconclusive. It was impossible to draw clear conclusions on the therapeutic value of aspirin for schizophrenia from these short, small and limited trials.

Benzodiazepines for catatonia in people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

Catatonia is a debilitating disorder of movement and volition associated with schizophrenia and some other mental illnesses. People with catatonia are more likely to require hospitalisation and highly supervised care than those without the disorder. They also have an increased risk of secondary complications such as pneumonia, malnutrition and dehydration. The mainstay of treatment has been drug therapies and electroconvulsive therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of benzodiazepines with other drugs, placebo or electroconvulsive therapy for catatonia in people with schizophrenia or other similar serious mental illnesses (SMIs).

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our previous search (28 February 2007) by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (9 November 2016; 6 February 2019). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register. We also manually searched reference lists from studies selected by the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All controlled clinical trials that randomised people who have schizophrenia or other similar SMI and experiencing catatonia to receive benzodiazepines or another relevant treatment. We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported usable data. We excluded those not meeting our inclusion criteria or those not reporting usable data. We contacted authors when we required further information; and if we received no response, we put those studies aside as 'awaiting assessment'.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis using a fixed-effect model. We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for the included study and generated a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The searches found 130 citations, from which we could identify 22 possibly relevant studies. From these, we could only include one study. This study had a relatively small sample size of 17 participants who received lorazepam or oxazepam and were drug free for one week before the trial started. The only usable data reported by this study were clinically important change in symptoms of catatonia measured as 50% improvement on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). There was no difference in the numbers of participants showing a clinically important change in their catatonic symptoms (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.16; participants = 17; studies = 1; very low quality evidence).No data were reported for other important outcomes of hospital stay, clinically important change in satisfaction with care, global state, adverse effects or general functioningWe did find a few studies meeting our inclusion criteria but they reported no usable data. We had to exclude these. Although poorly reported, these studies do illustrate that relevant studies have been undertaken - they are not impossible to design and conduct.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the results from this review, which was a head-to-head comparison of two benzodiazepine monotherapies, does not show a clear difference in effect. No data were available for benzodiazepines compared to placebo or standard care. The lack of usable data and very low quality of data available makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions and further studies with a high-quality methodology and reporting are required in order to determine more definitively the outcomes associated with benzodiazepine use in the clinical management of catatonia in persons with schizophrenia and other SMI.

Haloperidol discontinuation for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a disabling serious mental illness that can be chronic. Haloperidol, one of the first generation of antipsychotic drugs, is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia but can have adverse side effects. The effects of stopping haloperidol in people with schizophrenia who are stable on their prescription are not well researched in the context of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of haloperidol discontinuation in people with schizophrenia who are stable on haloperidol.

SEARCH METHODS

On 20 February 2015, 24 May 2017, and 12 January 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included clinical trials randomising adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving haloperidol, and were stable. We included trials that randomised such participants to either continue their current treatment with haloperidol or discontinue their haloperidol treatment. We included trials that met our selection criteria and reported usable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently checked all records retrieved from the search and obtained full reports of relevant records for closer inspection. We extracted data from included studies independently. All usable data were dichotomous, and we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias within the included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 232 participants comparing haloperidol discontinuation with haloperidol continuation. Discontinuation was achieved in all five studies by replacing haloperidol with placebo. The trials' size ranged between 23 and 87 participants. The methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were poorly reported.Participants allocated to discontinuing haloperidol treatment were more likely to show no improvement in global state compared with those in the haloperidol continuation group (n = 49; 1 RCT; RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.20; very low quality evidence: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited due to relevant methodological shortcomings of included trials). Those who continued haloperidol treatment were less likely to experience a relapse compared to people who discontinued taking haloperidol (n = 165; 4 RCTs; RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.74; very low quality evidence). Satisfaction with treatment (measured as numbers leaving the study early) was similar between groups (n = 43; 1 RCT; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.28; very low quality evidence).No usable mental state, general functioning, general behaviour or adverse effect data were reported by any of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides limited evidence derived from small, short-term studies. The longest study was for one year, making it difficult to generalise the results to a life-long disorder. Very low quality evidence shows that discontinuation of haloperidol is associated with an increased risk of relapse and a reduction in the risk of 'global state improvement'. However, participant satisfaction with haloperidol treatment was not different from participant satisfaction with haloperidol discontinuation as measured by leaving the studies early. Due to the very low quality of these results, firm conclusions cannot be made. In addition, the available studies did not report usable data regarding the adverse effects of haloperidol treatment.Considering that haloperidol is one of the most widely used antipsychotic drugs, it was surprising that only a small number of studies into the benefit and harm of haloperidol discontinuation were available. Moreover, the available studies did not report on outcomes that are important to clinicians and to people with schizophrenia, particularly adverse effects and social outcomes. Better designed trials are warranted.

Yoga as part of a package of care versus non-standard care for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Yoga is an ancient body-mind practice which originated in India and is popular in the Western world as a form of relaxation and exercise. It has been of interest for people with schizophrenia to determine the efficacy of yoga delivered as a package of care versus non-standard care.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of yoga as part of a package of care versus non-standard care for schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (latest 15 May 2018) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, BIOSS, AMED, PsychINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We searched the references of all included studies. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with schizophrenia comparing yoga as part of a package of care with non-standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

There were no data to analyse as no studies met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

The searches identified 30 studies that could be relevant to this review. After careful inspection, 29 were excluded and one is awaiting classification. No data were available for analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In view of the lack of evidence from RCTs, it is currently not possible for us to comment on the use of yoga as part of a package of care versus non-standard care.

Peer support for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

Peer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.

Electroconvulsive therapy for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) involves the induction of a seizure by the administration of an electrical stimulus via electrodes usually placed bilaterally on the scalp and was introduced as a treatment for schizophrenia in 1938. However, ECT is a controversial treatment with concerns about long-term side effects such a memory loss. Therefore, it is important to determine its clinical efficacy and safety for people with schizophrenia who are not responding to their treatment.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess the effects (benefits and harms) of ECT for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.Our secondary objectives were to determine whether ECT produces a differential response in people: who are treated with unilateral compared to bilateral ECT; who have had a long (more than 12 sessions) or a short course of ECT; who are given continuation or maintenance ECT; who are diagnosed with well-defined treatment-resistant schizophrenia as opposed to less rigorously defined treatment-resistant schizophrenia (who would be expected to have a greater affective component to their illness).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including clinical trial registries on 9 September 2015 and 4 August 2017. There were no limitations on language, date, document type, or publication status for the inclusion of records in the register. We also inspected references of all the included records to identify further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of ECT in people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CIs), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between the groups and its 95% CIs. We employed the fixed-effect model for all analyses. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies involving 1285 participants (1264 completers with an average age of 18 to 46 years) with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. We rated most studies (14/15, 93.3%) as at high risk of bias due to issues related to the blinding of participants and personnel. Our main outcomes of interest were: (i) clinically important response to treatment; (ii) clinically important change in cognitive functioning; (iii) leaving the study early; (iv) clinically important change in general mental state; (v) clinically important change in general functioning; (vi) number hospitalised; and (vii) death. No trial reported data on death.The included trials reported useable data for four comparisons: ECT plus standard care compared with sham-ECT added to standard care; ECT plus standard care compared with antipsychotic added to standard care; ECT plus standard care compared with standard care; and ECT alone compared with antipsychotic alone.For the comparison ECT plus standard care versus sham-ECT plus standard care, only average endpoint BPRS (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale) scores from one study were available for mental state; no clear difference between groups was observed (short term; MD 3.60, 95% CI -3.69 to 10.89; participants = 25; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). One study reported data for service use, measured as number readmitted; there was a clear difference favouring the ECT group (short term; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.85; participants = 25; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).When ECT plus standard care was compared with antipsychotics (clozapine) plus standard care, data from one study showed no clear difference for clinically important response to treatment (medium term; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.58; participants = 162; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). Clinically important change in mental state data were not available, but average endpoint BPRS scores were reported. A positive effect for the ECT group was found (short-term BPRS; MD -5.20, 95% CI -7.93 to -2.47; participants = 162; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).When ECT plus standard care was compared with standard care, more participants in the ECT group had a clinically important response (medium term; RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.75 to 2.42; participants = 819; studies = 9; moderate-quality evidence). Data on clinically important change in cognitive functioning were not available, but data for memory deterioration were reported. Results showed that adding ECT to standard care may increase the risk of memory deterioration (short term; RR 27.00, 95% CI 1.67 to 437.68; participants = 72; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups in satisfaction and acceptability of treatment, measured as leaving the study early (medium term; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.63; participants = 354; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). Only average endpoint scale scores were available for mental state (BPRS) and general functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning). There were clear differences in scores, favouring ECT group for mental state (medium term; MD -11.18, 95% CI -12.61 to -9.76; participants = 345; studies = 2; low-quality evidence) and general functioning (medium term; MD 10.66, 95% CI 6.98 to 14.34; participants = 97; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).For the comparison ECT alone versus antipsychotics (flupenthixol) alone, only average endpoint scale scores were available for mental state and general functioning. Mental state scores were similar between groups (medium-term BPRS; MD -0.93, 95% CI -6.95 to 5.09; participants = 30; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence); general functioning scores were also similar between groups (medium-term Global Assessment of Functioning; MD -0.66, 95% CI -3.60 to 2.28; participants = 30; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence indicates that relative to standard care, ECT has a positive effect on medium-term clinical response for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, there is no clear and convincing advantage or disadvantage for adding ECT to standard care for other outcomes. The available evidence was also too weak to indicate whether adding ECT to standard care is superior or inferior to adding sham-ECT or other antipsychotics to standard care, and there was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of ECT alone. More good-quality evidence is needed before firm conclusions can be made.