Dataset Information

Psychosocial treatments for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised evidence.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There is evidence that different psychosocial interventions could reduce the risk of relapse in schizophrenia, but a comprehensive evidence based on their relative efficacy is lacking. We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA), integrating direct and indirect comparisons from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to rank psychosocial treatments for relapse prevention in schizophrenia according to their efficacy, acceptability and tolerability.

Methods and analysis

We will include all RCTs comparing a psychosocial treatment aimed at preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia with another psychosocial intervention or with a no treatment condition (waiting list, treatment as usual). We will include studies on adult patients with schizophrenia, excluding specific subpopulations (eg, acutely ill patients). Primary outcome will be the number of patients experiencing a relapse. Secondary outcomes will be acceptability (dropout), change in overall, positive, negative and depressive symptoms, quality of life, adherence, functioning and adverse events. Published and unpublished studies will be sought through database searches, trial registries and websites. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. We will conduct random-effects NMA to synthesise all evidence for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. NMA will be conducted in R within a frequentist framework. The risk of bias in studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the credibility of the evidence will be evaluated using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.

Ethics and dissemination

No ethical issues are foreseen. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019147884.

SUBMITTER: Bighelli I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7044981 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is now a recommended treatment for people with schizophrenia. This approach helps to link the person's distress and problem behaviours to underlying patterns of thinking.ObjectivesTo review the effects of CBT for people with schizophrenia when compared with other psychological therapies.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2010) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected all references of the selected articles for further relevant trials, and, where appropriate, contacted authors.Selection criteriaAll relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT for people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.Data collection and analysisStudies were reliably selected and assessed for methodological quality. Two review authors, working independently, extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data on an intention-to-treat basis and continuous data with 65% completion rate are presented. Where possible, for dichotomous outcomes, we estimated a risk ratio (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) along with the number needed to treat/harm.Main resultsThirty papers described 20 trials. Trials were often small and of limited quality. When CBT was compared with other psychosocial therapies, no difference was found for outcomes relevant to adverse effect/events (2 RCTs, n = 202, RR death 0.57 CI 0.12 to 2.60). Relapse was not reduced over any time period (5 RCTs, n = 183, RR long-term 0.91 CI 0.63 to 1.32) nor was rehospitalisation (5 RCTs, n = 294, RR in longer term 0.86 CI 0.62 to 1.21). Various global mental state measures failed to show difference (4 RCTs, n = 244, RR no important change in mental state 0.84 CI 0.64 to 1.09). More specific measures of mental state failed to show differential effects on positive or negative symptoms of schizophrenia but there may be some longer term effect for affective symptoms (2 RCTs, n = 105, mean difference (MD) Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) -6.21 CI -10.81 to -1.61). Few trials report on social functioning or quality of life. Findings do not convincingly favour either of the interventions (2 RCTs, n = 103, MD Social Functioning Scale (SFS) 1.32 CI -4.90 to 7.54; n = 37, MD EuroQOL -1.86 CI -19.20 to 15.48). For the outcome of leaving the study early, we found no significant advantage when CBT was compared with either non-active control therapies (4 RCTs, n = 433, RR 0.88 CI 0.63 to 1.23) or active therapies (6 RCTs, n = 339, RR 0.75 CI 0.40 to 1.43)Authors' conclusionsTrial-based evidence suggests no clear and convincing advantage for cognitive behavioural therapy over other - and sometime much less sophisticated - therapies for people with schizophrenia.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is rising awareness that we need multidisciplinary approaches integrating psychological treatments for schizophrenia, but a comprehensive evidence based on their relative efficacy is lacking. We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA), integrating direct and indirect comparisons from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to rank psychological treatments for schizophrenia according to their efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will include all RCTs comparing a psychological treatment aimed at positive symptoms of schizophrenia with another psychological intervention or with a no treatment condition (waiting-list and treatment as usual). We will include studies on adult patients with schizophrenia, excluding specific subpopulations (eg, first-episode patients or patients with psychiatric comorbidities). Primary outcome will be the change in positive symptoms on a published rating scale. Secondary outcomes will be acceptability (dropout), change in overall and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, response, relapse, adherence, depression, quality of life, functioning and adverse events. Published and unpublished studies will be sought through database searches, trial registries and websites. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. We will conduct random-effects NMA to synthesise all evidences for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. NMA will be conducted in Stata and R within a frequentist framework. The risk of bias in studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the credibility of the evidence will be evaluated using an adaptation of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to NMA, recommended by the Cochrane guidance. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethical issues are foreseen. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017067795.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Antipsychotic treatment in early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) lacks a rich evidence base, and efforts to rank different drugs concerning their efficacy have not proven any particular drug superior. In contrast to the literature regarding adult-onset schizophrenia (AOS), comparative effectiveness studies in children and adolescents are limited in number and size, and only a few meta-analyses based on conventional methodologies have been conducted. METHODS AND ANALYSES:We will conduct a network meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluate antipsychotic therapies for EOS to determine which compounds are efficacious, and to determine the relative efficacy and safety of these treatments when compared in a network meta-analysis. Unlike a contrast-based (standard) meta-analysis approach, an arm-based network meta-analysis enables statistical inference from combining both direct and indirect comparisons within an empirical Bayes framework. We will acquire eligible studies through a systematic search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases. Eligible studies should randomly allocate children and adolescents presenting with schizophrenia or a related non-affective psychotic condition to an intervention group or to a control group. Two reviewers will-independently and in duplicate-screen titles and abstracts, complete full text reviews to determine eligibility, and subsequently perform data abstraction and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will conduct meta-analyses to establish the effect of all reported therapies on patient-relevant efficacy and safety outcomes when possible. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No formal ethical procedures regarding informed consent are required as no primary data collection is undertaken. The review will help facilitate evidence-based management, identify key areas for future research, and provide a framework for conducting large systematic reviews combining direct and indirect comparisons. The study will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO CRD42013006676.

Project description:IntroductionDisruptive behaviour disorders are common among children and adolescents, with negative impacts on the youths, their families and society. Although multiple psychosocial treatments are effective in decreasing the symptoms of disruptive behaviour disorders, comprehensive evidence regarding the comparative efficacy and acceptability between these treatments is still lacking. Therefore, we propose a systematic review and network meta-analysis, integrating both direct and indirect comparisons to obtain a hierarchy of treatment efficacy and acceptability.Methods and analysisThe present protocol will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. Ten databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, OpenDissertations, The Cochrane Library, Embase and CINAHL, will be searched from inception for randomised controlled trials of psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents with disruptive behaviour disorders, without restrictions on language, publication year and status. The primary outcomes will be efficacy at post-treatment (severity of disruptive behaviour disorders at post-treatment) and acceptability (dropout rate for any reason) of psychosocial treatments. The secondary outcomes will involve efficacy at follow-up, severity of internalising problems and improvement of social functioning. Two authors will independently conduct the study selection and data extraction, assess the risk of bias using the revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and evaluate the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to network meta-analysis. We will perform Bayesian network meta-analyses with a random effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings.Ethics and disseminationThe research does not require ethical approval. Results are planned to be published in journals or presented at conferences. The network meta-analysis will provide information on a hierarchy of treatment efficacy and acceptability and help make a clinical treatment choice.Prospero registration numberCRD42020197448.

Project description:Few controlled trials compared second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) regarding relapse prevention in schizophrenia. We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis of randomized trials, lasting ?6 months comparing SGAs with FGAs in schizophrenia. Primary outcome was study-defined relapse; secondary outcomes included relapse at 3, 6 and 12 months; treatment failure; hospitalization; and dropout owing to any cause, non-adherence and intolerability. Pooled relative risk (RR) (±95% confidence intervals (CIs)) was calculated using random-effects model, with numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) calculations where appropriate. Across 23 studies (n=4504, mean duration=61.9±22.4 weeks), none of the individual SGAs outperformed FGAs (mainly haloperidol) regarding study-defined relapse, except for isolated, single trial-based superiority, and except for risperidone's superiority at 3 and 6 months when requiring ?3 trials. Grouped together, however, SGAs prevented relapse more than FGAs (29.0 versus 37.5%, RR=0.80, CI: 0.70-0.91, P=0.0007, I(2)=37%; NNT=17, CI: 10-50, P=0.003). SGAs were also superior regarding relapse at 3, 6 and 12 months (P=0.04, P<0.0001, P=0.0001), treatment failure (P=0.003) and hospitalization (P=0.004). SGAs showed trend-level superiority for dropout owing to intolerability (P=0.05). Superiority of SGAs regarding relapse was modest (NNT=17), but confirmed in double-blind trials, first- and multi-episode patients, using preferentially or exclusively raw or estimated relapse rates, and for different haloperidol equivalent comparator doses. There was no significant heterogeneity or publication bias. The relevance of the somewhat greater efficacy of SGAs over FGAs on several key outcomes depends on whether SGAs form a meaningful group and whether mid- or low-potency FGAs differ from haloperidol. Regardless, treatment selection needs to be individualized considering patient- and medication-related factors.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Major depressive disorder is a common debilitating illness that is the second leading contributor to the global burden of disease. Unfortunately, about 30 % of patients do not respond to adequate trials of antidepressants and/or psychotherapies. About 45-60 % of such treatment-resistant patients will remit with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). However, relapse rates are high following ECT-38 % after 6 months. There is a need for better relapse prevention strategies. One possibility is to use ketamine, a competitive glutamate receptor antagonist used for anaesthesia. A recent paradigm shift in treating depression and understanding its biology has been the finding that ketamine has a robust, rapid-onset, though short-lived, antidepressant effect that is possibly mediated through neuroplastic effects. However, ketamine has not previously been reported on for relapse prevention. METHODS/DESIGN:The main objective of this study is to conduct a randomised controlled pilot trial (n?=?40) of a 4-week course of once-weekly ketamine infusions for relapse prevention following ECT for depression to assess trial procedures that will inform a future definitive trial. Participants with unipolar depression will be recruited prior to commencing ECT and be assessed weekly during the ECT course using the primary clinical outcome, the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-24). Those who meet standard response criteria will be invited, on completing ECT, to be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to a course of four once-weekly infusions of ketamine or an active comparator midazolam, which mimics some of the effects of ketamine and may improve blinding over inactive placebo. Participants will be followed up over 6 months using the HRSD-24 to assess for relapse. DISCUSSION:This is the first registered trial (NCT02414932, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02414932) of ketamine for depression relapse prevention, an important possible use of this agent. The primary focus of the pilot trial is on feasibility. However, a 95 % confidence interval will be determined for the difference between ketamine and midazolam groups in 6-month relapse rates to help inform a future definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:https://clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT02414932 Secondary Identifying numbers: EudraCT number: 2014-000339-18 Sponsors' Reference, Sponsor: St. Patrick's Mental Health Services: 05/14 Research Ethics Committee Reference, Joint REC of St James' and Tallaght Hospitals, Dublin: 2014-08-19.

Project description:IntroductionChronic, non-cancer, axial or radicular spinal pain is a common condition associated with considerable socioeconomic burden. Clinicians frequently offer patients various interventional procedures for the treatment of chronic spine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness and safety of available procedures remains uncertain.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that explores the effectiveness and harms of interventional procedures for the management of axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain. We will identify eligible studies through a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from inception without language restrictions. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol primarily adult patients (≥18 years old) with axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain, (2) randomise patients to different, currently available, interventional procedures or to an interventional procedure and a placebo/sham procedure or usual care, and (3) measure outcomes at least 1 month after randomisation.Pairs of reviewers will independently screen articles identified through searches and extract information and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. We will use frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses to assess the relative effects of interventional procedures, and five a priori hypotheses to explore between studies subgroup effects. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome, including direct, indirect and network estimates.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations, and our review will support development of a BMJ Rapid Recommendations providing contextualised clinical guidance based on this body of evidence.Prospero registration numberCRD42020170667.