Dataset Information

Early interventions to prevent psychosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether any psychological, pharmacological, or nutritional interventions can prevent or delay transition to psychotic disorders for people at high risk.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Embase, Medline, PreMedline, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched to November 2011 without restriction to publication status.

Review methods

Randomised trials comparing any psychological, pharmacological, nutritional, or combined intervention with usual services or another treatment. Studies of participants with a formal diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder were excluded. Studies were assessed for bias, and relevant limitations were considered in summarising the results.

Results

11 trials including 1246 participants and eight comparisons were included. Median sample size of included trials was 81 (range 51-288). Meta-analyses were performed for transition to psychosis, symptoms of psychosis, depression, and mania; quality of life; weight; and discontinuation of treatment. Evidence of moderate quality showed an effect for cognitive behavioural therapy on reducing transition to psychosis at 12 months (risk ratio 0.54 (95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.86); risk difference -0.07 (-0.14 to -0.01). Very low quality evidence for omega-3 fatty acids and low to very low quality evidence for integrated psychotherapy also indicated that these interventions were associated with reductions in transition to psychosis at 12 months.

Conclusions

Although evidence of benefits for any specific intervention is not conclusive, these findings suggest that it might be possible to delay or prevent transition to psychosis. Further research should be undertaken to establish conclusively the potential for benefit of psychological interventions in the treatment of people at high risk of psychosis.

SUBMITTER: Stafford MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3548617 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background'Early Intervention in Psychosis' (EIP) services have been associated with improved outcomes for early psychosis. However, these services are heterogeneous and many provide different components of treatment. The impact of this variation on the sustained treatment effects is unknown.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and component network meta-analysis (cNMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared specialised intervention services for early psychosis. We searched CENTRAL (published and unpublished), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science from inception to February 2023. Primary outcomes were negative and positive psychotic symptoms at 3-month and 1-year follow-up and treatment dropouts. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms and social functioning at 1-year follow-up. We registered a protocol for our study in PROSPERO (CRD42017057420).FindingsWe identified 37 RCTs including 4599 participants. Participants' mean age was 25.8 years (SD 6.0) and 64.0% were men. We found evidence that psychological interventions (this component grouped all psychological treatment intended to treat, or ameliorate the consequences of, psychotic symptoms) are beneficial for reducing negative symptoms (iSMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.05, p = 0.014) at 3-month follow-up and may be associated with clinically relevant benefits in improving social functioning scores at 1-year follow-up (iSMD -0.52, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.01, p = 0.052). The addition of case management has a beneficial effect on reducing negative symptoms (iSMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.11, p = 0.030) and positive symptoms (iSMD -1.05, 95% CI -2.02 to -0.08, p = 0.033) at 1-year follow-up. Pharmacotherapy was present in all trial arms, meaning it was not possible to examine the specific effects of this component.InterpretationOur findings suggest psychological interventions and case management in addition to pharmacotherapy as the core components of services for early psychosis to achieve sustained clinical benefits. Our conclusions are limited by the small number of studies and sparsely connected networks.FundingNational Institute for Health and Care Research.

Project description:Family interventions for psychosis (FIp) are effective in reducing service user relapse and carer distress in people with schizophrenia-spectrum conditions. Several treatment and best practice guidelines recommend FIp for all people with schizophrenia. However, outcome findings in relation to early psychosis groups have been inconsistent. The current paper reports a systematic review and meta-analyses of articles that evaluated FIp in early psychosis with a clearly defined comparison group. A combination of electronic database searches (using PsychINFO, Medline, and CENTRAL), citation searches and hand searches of key journals and reviews was conducted. Peer-reviewed articles published in English from database inception to June 2016 were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP). Seventeen papers from 14 studies met inclusion criteria for review, the overall quality of which was moderate. Meta-analytic synthesis showed that FIp improved service user functioning and reduced the likelihood of relapse by the end of treatment. Psychotic symptoms were significantly reduced in the FIp group at follow up, but this was not evident at end of treatment. In terms of FIp target mechanisms, carers receiving FIp were more likely to shift from high to low expressed emotion and less likely to report patient focused criticism or engage in conflict communication than carers randomized to standard care. Carer burden and well-being were improved by the end of treatment but gains were not sustained at follow up. FIp had no impact on carer emotional over-involvement. The findings indicate that FIp is an effective intervention for early psychosis service users and their relatives. However, further research is required to establish which key therapeutic components of FIp are most effective for whom, in addition to understanding the mechanisms by which FIp might affect positive change.

Project description:At present, prevention is particularly important when there is no effective treatment for cognitive decline. Since the adverse events of pharmacological interventions counterbalance the benefits, nonpharmacological approaches seem desirable to prevent cognitive decline. To our knowledge, no meta-analyses have been published on nonpharmacological interventions preventing cognitive decline. To investigate whether nonpharmacological interventions play a role in preventing cognitive decline among older people, we searched related trials up to March 31, 2019, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials and the Cochrane library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they enrolled participants older than 60 years of age who had a risk of cognitive decline, and the interventions were nonpharmacological. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence. Heterogeneity was quantified with I2. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to research the sources of heterogeneity. Influence analyses were used to detect and remove extreme effect sizes (outliers) in our meta-analysis. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and Egger test. Primary outcomes were the incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) scores. Second outcomes were activities of daily living (ADL) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores. A total of 22 studies with 13,264 participants were identified for analysis. In terms of prevention, nonpharmacological interventions appeared to be more effective than control conditions, as assessed by the incidence of MCI or dementia (RR, 0.73; CI, 0.55-0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), while the results of ADAS-Cog suggested no significant differences between two groups (MD, -0.69; CI, -1.52-0.14; very low-certainty evidence). Second outcomes revealed a significant improvement from nonpharmacological interventions versus control in terms of the change in ADL (MD, 0.73; CI, 0.65-0.80) and MMSE scores (posttreatment scores: MD, 0.25; CI, 0.02-0.47; difference scores: MD, 0.59, CI, 0.29-0.88). Univariable meta-regression showed association between lower case of MCI or dementia and two subgroup factors (P = 0.013 for sample size; P = 0.037 for area). Multiple meta-regression suggested that these four subgroup factors were not associated with decreased incidence of MCI (P > 0.05 for interaction). The Naive RR estimate was calculated as 0.73. When the three studies that detected by outlier and influence analysis were left out, the Robust RR was 0.66. In conclusion, nonpharmacological therapy could have an indicative role in reducing the case of MCI or dementia. However, given the heterogeneity of the included RCTs, more preregistered trials are needed that explicitly examine the association between nonpharmacological therapy and cognitive decline prevention, and consider relevant moderators.

Project description:ObjectiveCognitive compensatory interventions aim to alleviate psychosocial disability by targeting functioning directly using aids and strategies, thereby minimizing the impact of cognitive impairment. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive compensatory interventions for psychosis by examining the effects on functioning and symptoms, and exploring whether intervention factors, study design, and age influenced effect sizes.MethodsElectronic databases (Ovid Medline, PsychINFO) were searched up to October 2018. Records obtained through electronic and manual searches were screened independently by two reviewers according to selection criteria. Data were extracted to calculate estimated effects (Hedge's g) of treatment on functioning and symptoms at post-intervention and follow-up. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool.ResultsTwenty-six studies, from 25 independent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis (1654 participants, mean age = 38.9 years, 64% male). Meta-analysis revealed a medium effect of compensatory interventions on functioning compared to control conditions (Hedge's g = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.33, 0.60, P < .001), with evidence of relative durability at follow-up (Hedge's g = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.19, 0.54, P < .001). Analysis also revealed small significant effects of cognitive compensatory treatment on negative, positive, and general psychiatric symptoms, but not depressive symptoms. Estimated effects did not significantly vary according to treatment factors (ie, compensatory approach, dosage), delivery method (ie, individual/group), age, or risk of bias. Longer treatment length was associated with larger effect sizes for functioning outcomes. No evidence of publication bias was identified.ConclusionCognitive compensatory interventions are associated with robust, durable improvements in functioning in people with psychotic illnesses.

Project description:Backgroundfoot problems are independent risk factors for falls in older people. Podiatrists diagnose and treat a wide range of problems affecting the feet, ankles and lower limbs. However, the effectiveness of podiatry interventions to prevent falls in older people is unknown. This systematic review examined podiatry interventions for falls prevention delivered in the community and in care homes.Methodssystematic review and meta-analysis. We searched multiple electronic databases with no language restrictions. Randomised or quasi-randomised-controlled trials documenting podiatry interventions in older people (aged 60+) were included. Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. TiDieR guidelines guided data extraction and where suitable statistical summary data were available, we combined the selected outcome data in pooled meta-analyses.Resultsfrom 35,857 titles and 5,201 screened abstracts, nine studies involving 6,502 participants (range 40-3,727) met the inclusion criteria. Interventions were single component podiatry (two studies), multifaceted podiatry (three studies), or multifactorial involving other components and referral to podiatry component (four studies). Seven studies were conducted in the community and two in care homes. Quality assessment showed overall low risk for selection bias, but unclear or high risk of detection bias in 4/9 studies. Combining falls rate data showed significant effects for multifaceted podiatry interventions compared to usual care (falls rate ratio 0.77 [95% CI 0.61, 0.99]); and multifactorial interventions including podiatry (falls rate ratio: 0.73 [95% CI 0.54, 0.98]). Single component podiatry interventions demonstrated no significant effects on falls rate.Conclusionsmultifaceted podiatry interventions and multifactorial interventions involving referral to podiatry produce significant reductions in falls rate. The effect of multi-component podiatry interventions and of podiatry within multifactorial interventions in care homes is unknown and requires further trial data.Prospero registration numberCRD42017068300.