Dataset Information

Protocol for individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of patients with psychosis to investigate treatment effect modifiers for CBT versus treatment as usual or other psychosocial interventions.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Aggregate data meta-analyses have shown heterogeneous treatment effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for patients with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses. This heterogeneity could stem from specific intervention or patient characteristics that could influence the clinical effectiveness of CBT, termed treatment effect modifiers. This individual participant data meta-analysis will investigate a range of potential treatment effect modifiers of the efficacy of CBT.

Methods and analysis

We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating CBT versus treatment as usual, or CBT versus other psychosocial interventions, for patients with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE and the online clinical trials registers of the US government, European Union, WHO and Current Controlled Trials will be searched. Two researchers will screen titles and abstracts identified by the search. Individual participant data will be requested for any eligible study, for the primary outcome (overall psychotic symptoms), secondary outcomes and treatment effect modifiers. Data will be checked and recoded according to an established statistical analysis plan. One-stage and two-stage random effects meta-analyses investigating potential treatment effect modifiers will be conducted. A list of potential treatment effect modifiers for CBT will be produced, motivating future research into particular modifiers.

Ethics and dissemination

This study does not require ethical approval as it is based on data from existing studies, although best ethical practice for secondary analysis of clinical data will be followed. The findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and promoted to relevant stakeholders.

Prospero registration number

CRD42017060068.

SUBMITTER: Sudell M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8166625 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSeveral evidence-based treatments are effective for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), yet a substantial proportion of patients do not respond or dropout of treatment. We describe the protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aimed at assessing the effectiveness and adverse effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy interventions for treating PTSD. Additionally, we seek to examine moderators and predictors of treatment outcomes.Method and analysisThis IPD-MA includes randomised controlled trials comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy interventions for PTSD. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, PTSDpubs and CENTRAL will be screened up till the 11th of January 2021. The target population is adults with above-threshold baseline PTSD symptoms on any standardised self-report measure. Trials will only be eligible if at least 70% of the study sample have been diagnosed with PTSD by means of a structured clinical interview. The primary outcomes of this IPD-MA are PTSD symptom severity, and response rate. Secondary outcomes include treatment dropout and adverse effects. Two independent reviewers will screen major bibliographic databases and past reviews. Authors will be contacted to contribute their participant-level datasets. Datasets will be merged into a master dataset. A one-stage IPD-MA will be conducted focusing on the effects of psychological and pharmacological interventions on PTSD symptom severity, response rate, treatment dropout and adverse effects. Subsequent analyses will focus on examining the effect of moderators and predictors of treatment outcomes. These will include sociodemographic, treatment-related, symptom-related, resilience, intervention, trauma and combat-related characteristics. By determining the individual factors that influence the effectiveness of specific PTSD treatments, we will gain insight into personalised treatment options for PTSD.Ethics and disseminationSpecific ethics approval for an IPD-MA is not required as this study entails secondary analysis of existing anonymised data. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations.

Project description:BackgroundFunctional recovery in psychosis remains a challenge despite current evidence-based treatment approaches. To address this problem, innovative interventions using virtual reality (VR) have recently been developed. VR technologies have enabled the development of realistic environments in which individuals with psychosis can receive psychosocial treatment interventions in more ecological settings than traditional clinics. These interventions may therefore increase the transfer of learned psychosocial skills to real-world environments, thereby promoting long-term functional recovery. However, the overall feasibility and efficacy of such interventions within the psychosis population remain unclear.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to investigate whether VR-based psychosocial interventions are feasible and enjoyable for individuals with psychosis, synthesize current evidence on the efficacy of VR-based psychosocial interventions for psychosis, and identify the limitations in the current literature to guide future research.MethodsThis research followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed and PsycINFO in May 2021. We searched for peer-reviewed English articles that used a psychosocial intervention with a VR component. Participants in the included studies were diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or another psychotic disorder. The included studies were divided into four categories as follows: cognitive remediation interventions, social skills interventions, vocational skills interventions, and auditory verbal hallucinations and paranoia interventions. The risk of bias assessment was performed for each study.ResultsA total of 18 studies were included in this systematic review. Of these 18 studies, 4 (22%) studies used a cognitive remediation intervention, 4 (22%) studies used a social skills intervention, 3 (17%) studies used a vocational skills intervention, and 7 (39%) studies implemented an intervention aimed at improving auditory verbal hallucinations or paranoia. A total of 745 individuals with psychosis were included in the study. All the studies that evaluated feasibility showed that VR-based psychosocial interventions were feasible and enjoyable for individuals with psychosis. The preliminary evidence on efficacy included in this review suggests that VR-based psychosocial interventions can improve cognitive, social, and vocational skills in individuals with psychosis. VR-based interventions may also improve the symptoms of auditory verbal hallucinations and paranoia. The skills that participants learned through these interventions were durable, transferred into real-world environments, and led to improved functional outcomes, such as autonomy, managing housework, and work performance.ConclusionsVR-based interventions may represent a novel and efficacious approach for improving psychosocial functioning in psychosis. Therefore, VR-based psychosocial interventions represent a promising adjunctive therapy for the treatment of psychosis, which may be used to improve psychosocial skills, community functioning, and quality of life.

Project description:BackgroundSome studies have suggested a link between antihypertensive medication and cancer, but the evidence is so far inconclusive. Thus, we aimed to investigate this association in a large individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.MethodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from Jan 1, 1966, to Sept 1, 2019, to identify potentially eligible randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing one blood pressure lowering drug class with a placebo, inactive control, or other blood pressure lowering drug. We also required that trials had at least 1000 participant years of follow-up in each treatment group. Trials without cancer event information were excluded. We requested individual participant data from the authors of eligible trials. We pooled individual participant-level data from eligible trials and assessed the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), β blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics on cancer risk in one-stage individual participant data and network meta-analyses. Cause-specific fixed-effects Cox regression models, stratified by trial, were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). The primary outcome was any cancer event, defined as the first occurrence of any cancer diagnosed after randomisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018099283).Findings33 trials met the inclusion criteria, and included 260 447 participants with 15 012 cancer events. Median follow-up of included participants was 4·2 years (IQR 3·0-5·0). In the individual participant data meta-analysis comparing each drug class with all other comparators, no associations were identified between any antihypertensive drug class and risk of any cancer (HR 0·99 [95% CI 0·95-1·04] for ACEIs; 0·96 [0·92-1·01] for ARBs; 0·98 [0·89-1·07] for β blockers; 1·01 [0·95-1·07] for thiazides), with the exception of calcium channel blockers (1·06 [1·01-1·11]). In the network meta-analysis comparing drug classes against placebo, we found no excess cancer risk with any drug class (HR 1·00 [95% CI 0·93-1·09] for ACEIs; 0·99 [0·92-1·06] for ARBs; 0·99 [0·89-1·11] for β blockers; 1·04 [0·96-1·13] for calcium channel blockers; 1·00 [0·90-1·10] for thiazides).InterpretationWe found no consistent evidence that antihypertensive medication use had any effect on cancer risk. Although such findings are reassuring, evidence for some comparisons was insufficient to entirely rule out excess risk, in particular for calcium channel blockers.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, Oxford Martin School.