Dataset Information

Antipsychotic drugs versus cognitive behavioural therapy versus a combination of both in people with psychosis: a randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Little evidence is available for head-to-head comparisons of psychosocial interventions and pharmacological interventions in psychosis. We aimed to establish whether a randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus antipsychotic drugs versus a combination of both would be feasible in people with psychosis.

Methods

We did a single-site, single-blind pilot randomised controlled trial in people with psychosis who used services in National Health Service trusts across Greater Manchester, UK. Eligible participants were aged 16 years or older; met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service; were in contact with mental health services, under the care of a consultant psychiatrist; scored at least 4 on delusions or hallucinations items, or at least 5 on suspiciousness, persecution, or grandiosity items on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS); had capacity to consent; and were help-seeking. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, CBT, or antipsychotics plus CBT. Randomisation was done via a secure web-based randomisation system (Sealed Envelope), with randomised permuted blocks of 4 and 6, stratified by gender and first episode status. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant. Participants were followed up for 1 year. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data about recruitment, retention, and acceptability), and the primary efficacy outcome was the PANSS total score (assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks). Non-neurological side-effects were assessed systemically with the Antipsychotic Non-neurological Side Effects Rating Scale. Primary analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses were done on an as-treated basis. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN06022197.

Findings

Of 138 patients referred to the study, 75 were recruited and randomly assigned-26 to CBT, 24 to antipsychotics, and 25 to antipsychotics plus CBT. Attrition was low, and retention high, with only four withdrawals across all groups. 40 (78%) of 51 participants allocated to CBT attended six or more sessions. Of the 49 participants randomised to antipsychotics, 11 (22%) were not prescribed a regular antipsychotic. Median duration of total antipsychotic treatment was 44·5 weeks (IQR 26-51). PANSS total score was significantly reduced in the combined intervention group compared with the CBT group (-5·65 [95% CI -10·37 to -0·93]; p=0·019). PANSS total scores did not differ significantly between the combined group and the antipsychotics group (-4·52 [95% CI -9·30 to 0·26]; p=0·064) or between the antipsychotics and CBT groups (-1·13 [95% CI -5·81 to 3·55]; p=0·637). Significantly fewer side-effects, as measured with the Antipsychotic Non-neurological Side Effects Rating Scale, were noted in the CBT group than in the antipsychotics (3·22 [95% CI 0·58 to 5·87]; p=0·017) or antipsychotics plus CBT (3·99 [95% CI 1·36 to 6·64]; p=0·003) groups. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be related to the trial (an overdose of three paracetamol tablets in the CBT group).

Interpretation

A head-to-head clinical trial of CBT versus antipsychotics versus the combination of the two is feasible and safe in people with first-episode psychosis.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Morrison AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6048761 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Aripiprazole is a relatively new antipsychotic drug, said to be the prototype of a new third generation of antipsychotics; the so-called dopamine-serotonin system stabilisers. In this review we examine how the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole differs from that of typical antipsychotics. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the effects of aripiprazole compared with other typical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials. We contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included all randomised trials comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotics in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a random effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a random effects model. We have contacted representatives of Bristol Myers Squibb pharmaceuticals (UK) for additional data. MAIN RESULTS:We included nine randomised trials involving 3122 people comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotic drugs. None of the studies reported on relapse - our primary outcome of interest. Attrition from studies was high and data reporting poor. Participants given aripiprazole were comparable to those receiving typical drugs in improving global state and mental state. Aripiprazole provided a significant advantage over typical antipsychotics in terms of fewer occurrences of extra-pyramidal symptom (n=968, 3 RCT, RR 0.46 CI 0.3 to 0.9, NNT 13 CI 17 to 10), and particularly akathisia (n=897, 3 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.3 to 0.6, NNT 11 CI 14 to 9). Fewer participants given aripiprazole developed hyperprolactinaemia (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.07 CI 0.03 to 0.2, NNT 2 CI 3 to 1). Aripiprazole presented a lesser risk of sinus tachycardia (n=289, 1 RCT, RR 0.09 CI 0.01 to 0.8, NNT 22 CI 63 to 13) and blurred vision (n=308, 1 RCT, RR 0.19 CI 0.1 to 0.7, NNT 14 CI 25 to 10); but enhanced risk of occurrence of dizziness (n=957, 3 RCT, RR 1.88 CI 1.1 to 3.2, NNH 20 CI 33 to 14) and nausea (n=957, 3 RCT, RR 3.03 CI 1.5 to 6.1, NNH 17 CI 25 to 13). Attrition rates were high in both groups, although significantly more participants in the aripiprazole group completed the study in the long term (n=1294, 1 RCT, RR 0.81 CI 0.8 to 0.9 NNT 8 CI 5 to 14). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Aripiprazole differs little from typical antipsychotic drugs with respect to efficacy, however it presents significant advantages in terms of tolerability. Clearly reported pragmatic short, medium and long term randomised controlled trials are required to replicate and validate these findings and determine the position of aripiprazole in everyday clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundTheoretically, behavioural activation may have a valuable role to play in the treatment of depression among young people with emerging/early psychosis, however we lack trial evidence concerning its acceptability and feasibility. This study will establish the feasibility of clinician-delivered behavioural activation as an adjunct to standard care for this population. We aim to train and support clinicians in delivering behavioural activation to improve depressive symptoms in young people with early/emerging psychosis. Our objectives are to: Establish the number of young people with early/emerging psychosis with clinically meaningful depression symptoms.Establish the proportion of clinicians that complete the behavioural activation training and are deemed to be competent.Determine the proportion of eligible participants approached who agree to consent to the research.Determine the proportion of participants that complete baseline measures, complete behavioural activation treatment (attending for at least fifteen minutes in a minimum of eight sessions), and complete follow-up measures (immediately post-intervention and at 3 months follow-up).Establish clinicians' fidelity to treatment (by recording randomly selected treatment sessions and completing a fidelity checklist).Calculate preliminary efficacy of behavioural activation against primary and secondary outcomes.Explore participants' experiences of facilitating behavioural activation (clinicians) and receiving behavioural activation (young people with emerging/early psychosis).MethodThis is a pilot controlled clinical trial with a two-arm parallel-group study. Approximately 60 young people with emerging/early psychosis will be randomly allocated to either behavioural activation treatment plus standard care or standard care alone. The primary outcome: depressive symptoms; and secondary outcomes: negative symptoms, overall psychiatric symptoms, medication side effects and functioning, will be assessed at baseline, post-intervention and at 3-months follow-up. The protocol is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (reference number: ACTRN12622000756729).DiscussionThe findings will inform the design of a full-scale randomised controlled trial.

Project description:BackgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is a set of research methods that capture events, feelings, and behaviors as they unfold in their real-world setting. Capturing data in the moment reduces important sources of measurement error but also generates challenges for noncompliance (ie, missing data). To date, EMA research has only examined the overall rates of noncompliance.ObjectiveIn this study, we identify four types of noncompliance among people who use drugs and aim to examine the factors associated with the most common types.MethodsData were obtained from a recent pilot study of 28 Nebraskan people who use drugs who answered EMA questions for 2 weeks. We examined questions that were not answered because they were skipped, they expired, the phone was switched off, or the phone died after receiving them.ResultsWe found that the phone being switched off and questions expiring comprised 93.34% (1739/1863 missing question-instances) of our missing data. Generalized structural equation model results show that participant-level factors, including age (relative risk ratio [RRR]=0.93; P=.005), gender (RRR=0.08; P=.006), homelessness (RRR=3.80; P=.04), personal device ownership (RRR=0.14; P=.008), and network size (RRR=0.57; P=.001), are important for predicting off missingness, whereas only question-level factors, including time of day (ie, morning compared with afternoon, RRR=0.55; P<.001) and day of week (ie, Tuesday-Saturday compared with Sunday, RRR=0.70, P=.02; RRR=0.64, P=.005; RRR=0.58, P=.001; RRR=0.55, P<.001; and RRR=0.66, P=.008, respectively) are important for predicting expired missingness. The week of study is important for both (ie, week 2 compared with week 1, RRR=1.21, P=.03, for off missingness and RRR=1.98, P<.001, for expired missingness).ConclusionsWe suggest a three-pronged strategy to preempt missing EMA data with high-risk populations: first, provide additional resources for participants likely to experience phone charging problems (eg, people experiencing homelessness); second, ask questions when participants are not likely to experience competing demands (eg, morning); and third, incentivize continued compliance as the study progresses. Attending to these issues can help researchers ensure maximal data quality.