Trans-Sector Integrated Treatment in Psychosis and Addiction

Dropout Rates in Psychosocial Interventions for People With Both Severe Mental Illness and Substance Misuse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, many psychosocial interventions for individual having both a psychotic spectrum disorder and a substance use disorder diagnoses have been developed and studied. However, there is a high dropout rate among this clinical population.

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aims to replicate a previous meta-analysis on the effects of psychosocial treatment for dual disorders, while including and determining the dropout rates in those type of interventions.

METHOD

Based on a Cochrane systematic review conducted in 2019, we conducted a meta-analysis including 40 randomized clinical trials on psychosocial treatment among persons suffering from schizophrenia spectrum disorder and substance use disorder.

RESULTS

A dropout rate of 27,2% was obtained. Stimulants use significantly affected dropout rates. Age, gender, diagnosis, alcohol and cannabis abuse, and duration of treatment did not affect dropout rates.

CONCLUSION

The 27,2% rate of dropout from psychosocial treatment highlights the need to engage participants having a dual diagnosis from the start by focusing on therapeutic alliance and motivation for treatment.

[Clinical presentations and therapy of polysubstance dependence in patients with schizophrenia]

BACKGROUND

The article presents the results of a clinical therapeutic and follow-up study of patients with a 'dual diagnosis' (polysubstance dependence comorbid with schizophrenia: paranoid schizophrenia or schizotypal disorder).

OBJECTIVE

To study clinical/dynamic changes of polysubstance dependence in patients with schizophrenia (paranoid schizophrenia, schizotypal disorder) and to evaluate the duration and quality of therapeutic remissions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two hundred and sixty-six male patients, including 176 patients with dependence syndrome and 90 patients with both dependence syndrome and schizophrenia, were studied.

RESULTS

Patients with the 'dual diagnosis' are characterized by early social maladjustment, earlier social deformation, lack of social skills and preference for a lonely lifestyle. The clinical and dynamic characteristics of dependence syndrome in patients with 'dual diagnosis' include older age of the first use of a psychoactive substance (PS), preference of alcohol as the first PS, experiment as the most frequent motivation for using PS (due to thought disorder), and the treatment of psychopathological disorders (PS like medicine) with a chaotic pattern being the most common in the use, a tendency to hospitalism.

CONCLUSION

The success of the treatment of patients with 'dual diagnosis' is possible by combining the therapy of endogenous disease and polysubstance dependence.

Measurement of unnecessary psychiatric readmissions in the context of care transition interventions: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine how published studies of inpatient to outpatient mental healthcare transition processes have approached measuring unnecessary psychiatric readmissions.

DESIGN

Scoping review using Levac et al's enhancement to Arksey and O'Malley's framework for conducting scoping reviews.

DATA SOURCES

Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane and ISI Web of Science article databases were searched from 1 January 2009 through 28 February 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included studies that (1) are about care transition processes associated with unnecessary psychiatric readmissions and (2) specify use of at least one readmission time interval (ie, the time period since previous discharge from inpatient care, within which a hospitalisation can be considered a readmission).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We assessed review findings through tabular and content analyses of the data extracted from included articles.

RESULTS

Our database search yielded 3478 unique articles, 67 of which were included in our scoping review. The included articles varied widely in their reported readmission time intervals used. They provided limited details regarding which readmissions they considered unnecessary and which risks they accounted for in their measurement. There were no perceptible trends in associations between the variation in these findings and the included studies' characteristics (eg, target population, type of care transition intervention).

CONCLUSIONS

The limited specification with which studies report their approach to unnecessary psychiatric readmissions measurement is a noteworthy gap identified by this scoping review, and one that can hinder both the replicability of conducted studies and adaptations of study methods by future investigations. Recommendations stemming from this review include (1) establishing a framework for reporting the measurement approach, (2) devising enhanced guidelines regarding which approaches to use in which circumstances and (3) examining how sensitive research findings are to the choice of the approach.

[Aripiprazole and quetiapine in the treatment of patients with 'dual diagnosis' of schizophrenia and drug addiction]

AIM

The randomized comparative study of aripiprazole and quetiapine in the treatment of patients with 'dual diagnosis' of schizophrenia and drug addiction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Intra-group analysis of dependent variables on the scales PANSS, BPRS, VAS, SACS showed significant differences in the dinamics of the therapy in all groups. A comparative randomized study included 90 men admitted to an inpatient addiction unit. Of these, 54 (60%) had a previously established psychiatric diagnosis and 36 patients (40%) did not have an established psychiatric diagnosis. They were randomized into 3 groups of 30 patients each: group 1 received aripiprazole at a dose of up to 20 mg/day, group 2 received quetiapine at a dose of up to 600 mg/day and group 3 (controls) was treated with haloperidol at a dose of up to 30 mg/day. Treatment duration was 21 days. The efficacy of aripiprazole and quetiapine was evaluated with PANSS, BPRS, VAS and SACS on 10^th, 14^th and 21^st day (visits 2-4). Drug safety was evaluated by recording adverse events or side-effects.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

An analysis of independent variables showed significant differences between aripiprazole and haloperidol in PANSS and BPRS scores at visit 4, in VAS scores at visit 3, and in SACS scores at visit 2. An intergroup analysis of independent variables showed significant differences between quetiapine and haloperidol in PANSS, VAS and SACS scores at visit 4 and between aripiprazole and quetiapine in VAS and SACS scores. According to the results of the correlation analisys it has been concluded that presenting features of schizophrenia are closely correlated with drug addiction (craving).

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.

[Evidence-based psychotherapy of addictive disorders]

BACKGROUND

Addictive disorders form the group of the most common mental disorders. A wide range of psychotherapeutic treatment interventions exists; however, the proportion of patients receiving evidence-based interventions or psychotherapeutic treatment in outpatient care is very low.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present review was a systematic reassessment of the empirical evidence for the efficacy of the different forms of psychotherapeutic treatment, identification of new effective interventions and derivation of recommendations for treatment practitioners.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search in a multistage method in the relevant national and international data banks was conducted. Subsequent analysis of topical guidelines, systematic reviews and original studies about addictions and therapy was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 3 topical national guidelines, 2 reviews and 16 original studies could be identified. In particular, cognitive behavioral therapy, behavioral interventions and motivational interventions could be identified as evidence-based interventions for the treatment of addictive disorders. Hypnotherapy can be recommended alternatively for patients dependent on tobacco. Also interesting for practitioners could be new treatment methods, such as neurocognitive training and mindfulness-based interventions.

CONCLUSION

At present, although of high quality, results from existing studies are sometimes inconsistent or are numerically insufficient with respect to special treatment options. Future studies are warranted with respect to different substance use disorders and further patient groups.

Patterns of Management of Patients With Dual Disorder (Psychosis) in Italy: A Survey of Psychiatrists and Other Physicians Focusing on Clinical Practice

Patients with severe psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective, and bipolar disorders frequently suffer from concomitant substance use disorders (SUDs)-Dual Disorder (DD) patients. In order to better understand current practices for management of patients with psychotic episodes and concomitant SUD in Italy, we carried out a survey of psychiatrists on current routine practice among prescribers. These aspects can help to identify at-risk patients, improve current prescribing practices, and favor early intervention. An ad hoc survey of 17 questions was administered to psychiatrists via electronic polling and on-line distribution; 448 completed questionnaires were collected. Comorbid substance abuse was most frequently diagnosed within the context of anxiety disorder (46%), followed by bipolar disorder (25%), and schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder (12%). The vast majority of respondents felt that patient management was becoming more complex due to substance abuse. The areas reported to be most affected in patients with SUD were functioning, interpersonal relations, and impulsivity, while sensory perception disorders, ideation, agitation, and impulsivity were the most frequently reported symptoms. In the acute setting, haloperidol was used as the first-line agent of choice followed by aripiprazole and olanzapine. In the maintenance phase, aripiprazole was the dominantly used first-line agent, followed by olanzapine. Almost half of respondents used long-acting agents, while about one-third did not. Among those prescribing long-acting agents, efficacy, control of impulsivity, and control of specific symptoms were cited as motivators, while in the maintenance phase, better adherence, and tolerability were mainly cited. From the responses to the present survey, it is clear that the respondents are aware of the problem of SUD in psychotic patients. While treatment be optimized in terms of the choice and formulation of antipsychotics, greater emphasis should be placed on efficacy, tolerability, and the negative metabolic consequences of some antipsychotics. When considering the ideal antipsychotic, long-acting agents were considered to be superior in reducing relapse, even if current treatment guidelines often give preference to oral formulations.

Evidence-based Treatment Options in Cannabis Dependency

BACKGROUND

Now that the consumption of natural and synthetic cannabinoids is becoming more widespread, the specific treatment of cannabis-related disturbances is an increasingly important matter. There are many therapeutic options, and it is not always clear which ones are evidence-based and appropriate for use in a given clinical situation.

METHODS

This review is based on reports of pertinent randomized and controlled trials (RCTs) that were retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) combined with other techniques has been found to have a moderate to large effect (Cohen's d = 0.53-0.9) on the amount of cannabis consumed as well as on the level of psychosocial functioning or the dependence syndrome. Systemic multidimensional family therapy (MDFT) has been found beneficial for younger adolescents who consume large amounts of cannabis and have psychiatric comorbidities. Short-term interventions with motivational talk therapy have been found effective for patients with or without an initial desire to achieve cannabis abstinence. All of these psychotherapeutic interventions are effective at evidence level Ia. The administration of gabapentin had a weak effect (d = 0.26) on the quantity consumed and on abstinence (evidence level Ib). Withdrawal symptoms can be alleviated with cannabinoid-receptor antagonists (d = 0.223 and 0.481) (evidence level Ib). On the other hand, there is evidence that serotonergic antidepressants can worsen withdrawal manifestations and increase the likelihood of relapse.

CONCLUSION

Psychotherapeutic techniques remain the foundation of treatment for cannabis dependence. No drug has yet been approved for the treatment of cannabis dependence because of the lack of scientific evidence. The rates of abstinence that are currently achieved, even with psychotherapy, are still only moderate. Further clinical studies are needed for the evaluation of combinations of various treatments that can meet the needs of individual patients.