Scholarlink

<p>Recently published large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have questioned the efficacy of preventive interventions in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to include this new evidence and provide future directions for the field. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and a pre-registered protocol, with a literature search conducted from inception to November 2023. We included RCTs that collected data on psychosis transition (the primary outcome) in CHR-P. Secondary outcomes were symptoms severity and functioning. Investigated time points were 6,12,24,36, and +36 months. We used odd ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMD) as summary outcomes. Heterogeneity was estimated with the Higgins I<sup>2</sup>. Twenty-four RCTs, involving 3236 CHR-P individuals, were included. Active interventions were Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), family-focused therapy, Integrated Psychological Therapy, antipsychotics, omega-3 fatty acids, CBT plus risperidone, minocycline, and other non-pharmacological approaches (cognitive remediation, sleep-targeted therapy, brain stimulation). Results showed no evidence that any of the investigated active interventions had a sustained and robust effect on any of the investigated outcomes in CHR-P, when compared to control interventions, including CBT on transition to psychosis at 12 months (9 RCTs; OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.39–1.06; I<sup>2</sup>: 21%; <i>P</i> = 0.08). These results highlight the need for novel treatment approaches in CHR-P. Future studies should consider the heterogeneity of this clinical population and prioritise stratification strategies and bespoke treatments.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Preventing psychosis in people at clinical high risk: an updated meta-analysis by the World Psychiatric Association Preventive Psychiatry section

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月14日

查看全文
  • Amedeo Minichino,
  • Cathy Davies,
  • Olga Karpenko,
  • Nikos Christodoulou,
  • Rodrigo Ramalho,
  • Sunil Nandha,
  • Stefano Damiani,
  • Umberto Provenzani,
  • Cecilia Maria Esposito,
  • Martina Maria Mensi,
  • Renato Borgatti,
  • Alberto Stefana,
  • Philip McGuire,
  • Paolo Fusar-Poli

摘要

Recently published large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have questioned the efficacy of preventive interventions in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to include this new evidence and provide future directions for the field. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and a pre-registered protocol, with a literature search conducted from inception to November 2023. We included RCTs that collected data on psychosis transition (the primary outcome) in CHR-P. Secondary outcomes were symptoms severity and functioning. Investigated time points were 6,12,24,36, and +36 months. We used odd ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMD) as summary outcomes. Heterogeneity was estimated with the Higgins I2. Twenty-four RCTs, involving 3236 CHR-P individuals, were included. Active interventions were Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), family-focused therapy, Integrated Psychological Therapy, antipsychotics, omega-3 fatty acids, CBT plus risperidone, minocycline, and other non-pharmacological approaches (cognitive remediation, sleep-targeted therapy, brain stimulation). Results showed no evidence that any of the investigated active interventions had a sustained and robust effect on any of the investigated outcomes in CHR-P, when compared to control interventions, including CBT on transition to psychosis at 12 months (9 RCTs; OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.39–1.06; I2: 21%; P = 0.08). These results highlight the need for novel treatment approaches in CHR-P. Future studies should consider the heterogeneity of this clinical population and prioritise stratification strategies and bespoke treatments.