Psychological intervention, antipsychotic medication or a combined treatment for adolescents with a first episode of psychosis: the MAPS feasibility three-arm RCT

Preferences of Young Adults With Psychosis for Cannabis-Focused Harm Reduction Interventions: A Cross-Sectional Study: Préférences des jeunes adultes souffrant de psychose pour les interventions de réduction des méfaits axées sur le cannabis : une étude transversale

OBJECTIVES

Cannabis use is common in people with early-phase psychosis (EP) and is associated with worse treatment outcomes. Few targeted interventions for cannabis use behaviour in this population exist, most focusing on abstinence, none focusing on harm reduction. Many people with EP will not seek treatment for their cannabis use with current therapeutic options. Understanding preferences for cannabis-focused harm reduction interventions may be key to improving outcomes. This study aimed to determine preferences of young adults with EP who use cannabis for cannabis-focused harm reduction interventions.

METHODS

Eighty-nine young adults across Canada with EP interested in reducing cannabis-related harms were recruited. An online questionnaire combining conventional survey methodology and two unique discrete choice experiments (DCEs) was administered. One DCE focused on attributes of core harm reduction interventions (DCE 1) and the second on attributes of boosters (DCE 2). We analysed these using mixed ranked-ordered logistic regression models. Preference questions using conventional survey methodology were analysed using summary statistics.

RESULTS

Preferred characteristics for cannabis-focused harm reduction interventions (DCE 1) were: shorter sessions (60 min vs. 10 min, odds ratio (OR): 0.72; P < 0.001); less frequent sessions (daily vs. monthly, OR: 0.68; P < 0.001); shorter interventions (3 months vs. 1 month, OR: 0.80; P < 0.01); technology-based interventions (vs. in-person, OR: 1.17; P < 0.05). Preferences for post-intervention boosters (DCE 2) included opting into boosters (vs. opting out, OR: 3.53; P < 0.001) and having shorter boosters (3 months vs. 1 month, OR: 0.79; P < 0.01). Nearly half of the participants preferred to reduce cannabis use as a principal intervention goal (vs. using in less harmful ways or avoiding risky situations).

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is required to see if technology-based harm reduction interventions for cannabis featuring these preferences translate into greater engagement and improved outcomes in EP patients.

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.

Practitioner Review: Psychosis in children and adolescents

Psychotic symptoms, including hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized thinking and behaviors, are the hallmarks of schizophrenia; but may also present in the context of other psychiatric and medical conditions. Many children and adolescents describe psychotic-like experiences, which can be associated with other types of psychopathology and past experiences (e.g., trauma, substance use, and suicidality). However, most youth reporting such experiences do not have, nor will ever develop, schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder. Accurate assessment is critical because these different presentations have different diagnostic and treatment implications. For this review, we focus primarily on the diagnosis and treatment of early onset schizophrenia. In addition, we review the development of community-based first-episode psychosis programming, and the importance of early intervention and coordinated care.

Treatment resistant psychosis in children and adolescents and clozapine: Nuances

With proliferation in research on high-risk psychosis spectrum diseases, it is crucial to distinguish a prodrome or psychosis-like episode in children and adolescents from true psychosis. The limited role of psychopharmacology in such circumstances is well-documented, underlining the difficulties in diagnosing treatment resistance. To add to the confusion is emerging data on the head-to-head comparison trials for treatment-resistant and treatment-refractory schizophrenia. Clozapine, the gold-standard drug for resistant schizophrenia and other psychotic psychopathology, lacks FDA or manufacturer guidelines for use in the pediatric population. Possibly due to developmental pharmacokinetic (PK) considerations, clozapine-related side effects are more commonly seen in children than adults. Despite evidence of an increased risk for seizures and hematological problems in children, clozapine is widely used off-label. Clozapine reduces the severity of resistant childhood schizophrenia, aggression, suicidality, and severe non-psychotic illness. There is inconsistent prescribing, administration, and monitoring of clozapine, and limited database evidence-backed guidelines. Despite the overwhelming efficacy, problems remain regarding unambiguous indications of use and risk-benefits assessments. This article reviews the nuances in the diagnosis of treatment resistance psychosis in childhood and adolescents and its management, in particular highlighting the evidence base for clozapine in this population group.

Adapting cognitive behavioural therapy for adolescents with psychosis: insights from the Managing Adolescent first episode in psychosis study (MAPS)

Background

Onset of psychosis commonly occurs in adolescence, and long-term prognosis can be poor. There is growing evidence, largely from adult cohorts, that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Psychosis (CBTp) and Family Interventions (FI) can play a role in managing symptoms and difficulties associated with psychosis. However, adolescents have distinct developmental needs that likely impact their engagement and response to talking therapy. There is limited guidance on adapting CBTp to meet the clinical needs of under-eighteens experiencing psychosis.

Method

This educational clinical practice article details learnings from therapists and supervisors working with young people (aged 14-18 years) with psychosis during the Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS) randomised clinical treatment trial, supplemented by findings from nested qualitative interviews with young people receiving CBTp.

Results

Suggested are given for tailoring CBTp assessment, formulation and interventions to meet the developmental and clinical needs of adolescents with psychosis. Developmentally appropriate techniques and resources described.

Conclusions

Early indications from MAPS study indicate this developmentally tailored approach is an acceptable, safe and helpful treatment for young people with psychosis. Further research is needed to develop empirically grounded and evaluated CBTp for adolescents.