Dataset Information

Pharmacological Treatment in Forensic Psychiatry-A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Background: Pharmacological treatment is of great importance in forensic psychiatry, and the vast majority of patients are treated with antipsychotic agents. There are several systematic differences between general and forensic psychiatric patients, e.g. severe violent behavior, the amount of comorbidity, such as personality disorders and/or substance abuse. Based on that, it is reasonable to suspect that effects of pharmacological treatments also may differ. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the effects of pharmacological interventions for patients within forensic psychiatry. Methods: The systematic review protocol was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017075308). Six databases were used for literature search on January 11, 2018. Controlled trials from forensic psychiatric care reporting on the effects of antipsychotic agents, mood stabilizers, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, as well as pharmacological agents used for the treatment of addiction or ADHD, were included. Two authors independently reviewed the studies, evaluated risk of bias and assessed certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: The literature search resulted in 1783 records (titles and abstracts) out of which 10 studies were included. Most of the studies included were retrospective and non-randomized. Five of them focused on treatment with clozapine and the remaining five on other antipsychotics or mood stabilizers. Five studies with a high risk of bias indicated positive effects of clozapine on time from treatment start to discharge, crime-free time, time from discharge to readmission, improved clinical functioning, and reduction in aggressive behavior. Psychotic symptoms after treatment were more pronounced in the clozapine group. Mainly due to the high risk of bias the reliability of the evidence for all outcomes was assessed as very low. Conclusion: This systematic review highlights the shortage of knowledge on the effectiveness of pharmacological treatment within forensic psychiatry. Due to very few studies being available in this setting, as well as limitations in their execution and reporting, it is challenging to overview the outcomes of pharmacological interventions in this context. The frequent use of antipsychotics, sometimes in combination with other pharmacological agents, in this complex and heterogeneous patient group, calls for high-quality studies performed in this specific setting.

SUBMITTER: Howner K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6976536 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacological Treatment in Forensic Psychiatry-A Systematic Review.

Howner Katarina K Andiné Peter P Engberg Göran G Ekström Emin Hoxha EH Lindström Eva E Nilsson Mikael M Radovic Susanna S Hultcrantz Monica M

Frontiers in psychiatry 20200116

<b>Background:</b> Pharmacological treatment is of great importance in forensic psychiatry, and the vast majority of patients are treated with antipsychotic agents. There are several systematic differences between general and forensic psychiatric patients, e.g. severe violent behavior, the amount of comorbidity, such as personality disorders and/or substance abuse. Based on that, it is reasonable to suspect that effects of pharmacological treatments also may differ. The objective of this systema ...[more]

PMID: 32009993

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStimulant drugs are second only to cannabis as the most widely used class of illicit drug globally, accounting for 68 million past-year consumers. Dependence on amphetamines (AMPH) or methamphetamine (MA) is a growing global concern. Yet, there is no established pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence. A comprehensive assessment of the research literature on pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence may inform treatment guidelines and future research directions.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature via the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS for randomised controlled trials reported in the English language examining a pharmacological treatment for AMPH/MA dependence or use disorder. We included all studies published to 19 June 2019. The selected studies were evaluated for design; methodology; inclusion and exclusion criteria; sample size; pharmacological and (if included) psychosocial interventions; length of follow-up and follow-up schedules; outcome variables and measures; results; overall conclusions and risk of bias. Outcome measures were any reported impact of treatment related to AMPH/MA use.ResultsOur search returned 43 studies that met our criteria, collectively enrolling 4065 participants and reporting on 23 individual pharmacotherapies, alone or in combination. Disparate outcomes and measures (n = 55 for the primary outcomes) across studies did not allow for meta-analyses. Some studies demonstrated mixed or weak positive signals (often in defined populations, e.g. men who have sex with men), with some variation in efficacy signals dependent on baseline frequency of AMPH/MA use. The most consistent positive findings have been demonstrated with stimulant agonist treatment (dexamphetamine and methylphenidate), naltrexone and topiramate. Less consistent benefits have been shown with the antidepressants bupropion and mirtazapine, the glutamatergic agent riluzole and the corticotropin releasing factor (CRF-1) antagonist pexacerfont; whilst in general, antidepressant medications (e.g. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]) have not been effective in reducing AMPH/MA use.ConclusionsNo pharmacotherapy yielded convincing results for the treatment of AMPH/MA dependence; mostly studies were underpowered and had low treatment completion rates. However, there were positive signals from several agents that warrant further investigation in larger scale studies; agonist therapies show promise. Common outcome measures should include change in use days. Future research must address the heterogeneity of AMPH/MA dependence (e.g. coexisting conditions, severity of disorder, differences between MA and AMPH dependence) and the role of psychosocial intervention.

Project description:BackgroundSmartphone-based technology is developing at high speed, and many apps offer potential new ways of monitoring and treating a range of psychiatric disorders and symptoms. However, the effects of most available apps have not been scientifically investigated. Within medicine, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the standard method for providing the evidence of effects. However, their rigidity and long time frame may contrast with the field of information technology research. Therefore, a systematic review of methodological challenges in designing and conducting RCTs within mobile health is needed.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to (1) identify and describe RCTs investigating the effect of smartphone-based treatment in adult patients with a psychiatric diagnosis, (2) discuss methodological challenges in designing and conducting individual trials, and (3) suggest recommendations for future trials.MethodsA systematic search in English was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE up to August 12, 2019. The search terms were (1) psychiatric disorders in broad term and for specific disorders AND (2) smartphone or app AND (3) RCT. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials electronic health guidelines were used as a template for data extraction. The focus was on trial design, method, and reporting. Only trials having sufficient information on diagnosis and acceptable diagnostic procedures, having a smartphone as a central part of treatment, and using an RCT design were included.ResultsA total of 27 trials comprising 3312 patients within a range of psychiatric diagnoses were included. Among them, 2 trials were concerning drug or alcohol abuse, 3 psychosis, 10 affective disorders, 9 anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder, 1 eating disorder, and 1 attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In addition, 1 trial used a cross-diagnostic design, 7 trials included patients with a clinical diagnosis that was subsequently assessed and validated by the researchers, and 11 trials had a sample size above 100. Generally, large between-trial heterogeneity and multiple approaches to patient recruitment, diagnostic procedures, trial design, comparator, outcome measures, and analyses were identified. Only 5 trials published a trial protocol. Furthermore, 1 trial provided information regarding technological updates, and only 18 trials reported on the conflicts of interest. No trial addressed the ethical aspects of using smartphones in treatment.ConclusionsThis first systematic review of the methodological challenges in designing and conducting RCTs investigating smartphone-based treatment in psychiatric patients suggests an increasing number of trials but with a lower quality compared with classic medical RCTs. Heterogeneity and methodological issues in individual trials limit the evidence. Methodological recommendations are presented.

Project description:In the past two decades, significant progress has been made in the development of polygenic scores (PGSs). One specific application of PGSs is the development and potential use of pharmacogenomic- scores (PGx-scores) to identify patients who can benefit from a specific medication or are likely to experience side effects. This systematic review comprehensively evaluates published PGx-score studies in psychiatry and provides insights into their potential clinical use and avenues for future development. A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases until 22 August 2023. This review included fifty-three primary studies, of which the majority (69.8%) were conducted using samples of European ancestry. We found that over 90% of PGx-scores in psychiatry have been developed based on psychiatric and medical diagnoses or trait variants, rather than pharmacogenomic variants. Among these PGx-scores, the polygenic score for schizophrenia (PGSSCZ) has been most extensively studied in relation to its impact on treatment outcomes (32 publications). Twenty (62.5%) of these studies suggest that individuals with higher PGSSCZ have negative outcomes from psychotropic treatment - poorer treatment response, higher rates of treatment resistance, more antipsychotic-induced side effects, or more psychiatric hospitalizations, while the remaining studies did not find significant associations. Although PGx-scores alone accounted for at best 5.6% of the variance in treatment outcomes (in schizophrenia treatment resistance), together with clinical variables they explained up to 13.7% (in bipolar lithium response), suggesting that clinical translation might be achieved by including PGx-scores in multivariable models. In conclusion, our literature review found that there are still very few studies developing PGx-scores using pharmacogenomic variants. Research with larger and diverse populations is required to develop clinically relevant PGx-scores, using biology-informed and multi-phenotypic polygenic scoring approaches, as well as by integrating clinical variables with these scores to facilitate their translation to psychiatric practice.

Dataset Information

Pharmacological Treatment in Forensic Psychiatry-A Systematic Review.

Publications

Pharmacological Treatment in Forensic Psychiatry-A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets