Maintenance Treatment With Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay of treatment of schizophrenia, and are known to reduce acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotics are effective for relapse prevention, compared to withdrawing these agents for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses, based on evidence from randomized trials. The current report of the update of the review is focused on some newly investigated outcomes: rates of remission and recovery, change in social functioning and in quality of life. The updated review included 75 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 1959 to 2017, involving 9145 participants. Although some potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear and robust to a series of sensitivity analyses. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at 1 year (drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.45) and in reducing hospitalization (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.57). Quality of life appeared to be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573, SMD = -0.32, 95% CI = -0.57 to -0.07); the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD = -0.43, 95% CI = -0.53 to -0.34). Although based on data from fewer studies, maintenance treatment apparently increased the possibility to achieve remission of symptoms (drug 53%, placebo 31%; 7 RCTs, 867 participants; RR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.20 to 2.48) and to sustain it over 6 months (drug 36%, placebo 26%; 8 RCTs, 1807 participants; RR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.19). There were no data on recovery. Antipsychotic drugs as a group were associated with more participants experiencing side effects such as movement disorders (e.g., at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI = 1.25 to 1.85) and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH = 25, 95% CI = 20 to 50). For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs does not only prevent relapses and rehospitalizations, but that patients also benefit in terms of quality of life, functioning and sustained remission. These positive effects must be weighed against the backdrop of the adverse effects of antipsychotics.

A German psychiatric care program aiming to improve patients’ compliance – Patients’ view

Noncompliance is a worldwide problem in medical care, leading to prolonged recovery times and rehospitalizations. Especially in the field of psychiatry, consistent therapy compliance is crucial. Hence the Munich Integrated Care program for patients suffering from psychiatric disorders aims at improving patients’ compliance. To bring to light participants' personal experiences with the program, we conducted group interviews that we evaluated using qualitative methods. We shed light on what aspects make a psychiatric health care program so valuable in the eyes of its participants that it can develop its effect as a relapse-preventive agent. We found that in this program, patients experienced safety, stability, support, hope, motivation and understanding.

Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: The symptoms and signs of schizophrenia have been linked to high levels of dopamine in specific areas of the brain (limbic system). Antipsychotic drugs block the transmission of dopamine in the brain and reduce the acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotic drugs are also effective for relapse prevention. This is the updated version of the aforesaid review. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of maintaining antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia compared to withdrawing these agents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including the registries of clinical trials (12 November 2008, 10 October 2017, 3 July 2018, 11 September 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials comparing maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs and placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), again based on a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: The review currently includes 75 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 9145 participants comparing antipsychotic medication with placebo. The trials were published from 1959 to 2017 and their size ranged between 14 and 420 participants. In many studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. However, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias gave similar results. Although this and other potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at seven to 12 months (primary outcome; drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.45, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation was also reduced, however, the baseline risk was lower (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57, NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 14; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the placebo group than in the antipsychotic drug group left the studies early due to any reason (at seven to 12 months: drug 36% versus placebo 62%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65, NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; high-certainty evidence) and due to inefficacy of treatment (at seven to 12 months: drug 18% versus placebo 46%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.44, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 4). Quality of life might be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573 SMD -0.32, 95% CI to -0.57 to -0.07; low-certainty evidence); probably the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Underpowered data revealed no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcome 'Death due to suicide' (drug 0.04% versus placebo 0.1%, 19 RCTs, n = 4634, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.97,low-certainty evidence) and for the number of participants in employment (at 9 to 15 months, drug 39% versus placebo 34%, 3 RCTs, n = 593, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41, low certainty evidence). Antipsychotic drugs (as a group and irrespective of duration) were associated with more participants experiencing movement disorders (e.g. at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.85, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 20, 95% CI 14 to 50), sedation (drug 8% versus placebo 5%, 18 RCTs, n = 4078, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.86, NNTH 50, 95% CI not significant), and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH 25, 95% CI 20 to 50). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs prevents relapse to a much greater extent than placebo for approximately up to two years of follow-up. This effect must be weighed against the adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs. Future studies should better clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality associated with these drugs.

Training patients with schizophrenia to share decisions with their psychiatrists: a randomized-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Many patients with schizophrenia have a desire for shared decision-making (SDM). However, in clinical practice SDM often does not take place. One cause might be that many patients behave passively in the medical encounter, therefore not facilitating SDM. It was the aim of the study to evaluate the effects of a patient directed SDM-training on patients' communicative behavior in the consultation, their attitudes towards decision-making and their long-term adherence. METHODS: Randomized-controlled trial comparing a five-session SDM-training for inpatients with schizophrenia with five sessions of non-specific group training. The SDM-training sessions included motivational (e.g. prospects of participation, patient rights) and behavioral aspects (e.g. role plays) and addressed important aspects of the patient-doctor interaction such as question asking or giving feedback. RESULTS: N = 264 patients were recruited in four psychiatric hospitals in Germany. The SDM-training yielded no group differences regarding the main outcome measure (treatment adherence) at 6 and 12 months after discharge. However, there were short-term effects on patients' participation preferences, their wish to take over more responsibility for medical decisions and (according to their psychiatrists' estimate) their behavior in psychiatric consultations. CONCLUSIONS: While there was no effect regarding treatment adherence, the shared decision-making training for inpatients with schizophrenia has been shown to increase patients' active behavior in psychiatric consultations during their inpatient treatment. When implemented it should be combined with complementary SDM interventions (decision support tools and communication training for professionals) to yield maximum effects.

Does it matter whether physicians' recommendations are given early or late in the decision-making process? An experimental study among patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES: Physicians' recommendations are seen as an essential component in many models of medical decision-making, including shared decision-making. It is, however, unclear at what time in the decision-making process the recommendation is best given, not to adversely influence patient preferences. Within the present study we wanted to evaluate at what time in the decision-making process a doctor's recommendation is best given, not to adversely influence patient preferences. DESIGN: We performed an experimental study involving hypothetical decisions vignettes and compared the influence of 3 conditions (no advice, early advice, late advice) on patients' decision-making. SETTING: N=21 psychiatric hospitals in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: N=208 inpatients suffering from schizophrenia. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was the number of patients choosing the option in each experimental condition that had been less preferable to most patients during pretests. Additional outcome measures were patient satisfaction and reactance. RESULTS: Patients in the 'late advice' condition more often (n=49) accepted an advice that was against their preferences compared with the other conditions (n=36 for 'early advice', p=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Although giving advice is an important part of every doctor's daily practice and is seen as an essential element of shared decision-making, hitherto there has been little empirical evidence relating to the influence of physicians' advice on patients' decision-making behaviour. With our study we could show that the point in time an advice is given by a physician does have an influence on patients' decisional behaviour even if the mechanism of this effect is not yet understood.

Psychoeducation Improves Compliance and Outcome in Schizophrenia Without an Increase of Adverse Side Effects: A 7-Year Follow-up of the Munich PIP-Study.

Psychoeducation improves adherence and motivates patients to accept a maintenance therapy as recommended by the guidelines. This would mean a daily consumption of at least 300 chlorpromazine (CPZ) units in the long run and should lead to an increase of the antipsychotic dosage in comparison to patients with treatment as usual (TAU). This raises 2 important questions: whether more side effects are provoked and do the patients have a corresponding benefit with a better outcome. A total of 41 patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenic or schizoaffective disorder were randomized at study entry, either to bifocal psychoeducation (21), or to standard treatment (20). They were compared concerning compliance, type of medication, dosage (CPZ equivalents), motor side effects and number of days in hospital. The average daily antipsychotic medication 2 and 7 years after index discharge was 365 and 354 CPZ-units respectively in the intervention group (IG), but 247 and 279, respectively in the control group (CG). The extent of motor side effects was slightly smaller in the IG, but they showed a small and statistically not significant increase in the rate of tardive dyskinesia (TD) after 7 years. At the 7-year follow-up the patients in the IG had spent 74.7 days in hospital compared to 243.4 days for the patients in the CG (P < .05). The course of illness was significantly better in the IG without increasing motor side-effects. Therefore, psychoeducation should be integrated more systematically into the routine treatment. These data are part of a previous study, published 2007, with a sample size of 48 patients. Seven patients-3 of the IG and 4 of the CG-could not be included, because they were not able to complete the very complex "Computer-based kinematic analysis of motor performance." In this article all conclusions are referred to the new sample size, therefore some results are slightly different in comparison to the previous data.

A "Mental-Health-at-the-Workplace" Educational Workshop Reduces Managers' Stigma Toward Depression.

Stigma and discrimination are important factors hindering people with mental health conditions to stay employed or successfully make their careers. We surveyed 580 German managers before and after visiting a "mental-health-at-the-workplace" educational workshop using the Depression Stigma Scale. The workshop significantly reduced stigma toward depression. Managers at baseline already exhibited lower stigma toward depression compared with the general population. In addition, female gender and higher education predicted lower stigma, which is in line with findings from other studies. We conclude that an educational workshop giving practical guidance regarding "mental-health-at-the-workplace" reduces managers' stigma toward depression and improves knowledge regarding depression, its course, and its treatment.

Lithium for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary anti-psychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, among them lithium. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether:1. Lithium alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia, schizophrenia-like psychoses and schizoaffective psychoses; and2. Lithium augmentation of antipsychotic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. This search was updated on January 20, 2015. For the first version of the review, we also contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of relevant studies to identify further trials and obtain original participant data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lithium compared with antipsychotics or placebo (or no intervention), whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication, in the treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated random-effects meta-analyses, risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to create 'Summary of findings' tables and assessed risk of bias for included studies. MAIN RESULTS: The update search in 2012 detected two further studies that met our inclusion criteria. We did not find any further studies that met our inclusion criteria in the 2015 search. This review now includes 22 studies, with a total of 763 participants (median mean age: 35 years, range: 26 to 72 years). Most studies were small, of short duration, and incompletely reported. As we detected a high risk of bias in many studies, the overall methodological quality of the included sample was rather low.Three small studies comparing lithium with placebo as the sole treatment showed no difference in any of the outcomes we analysed.In eight studies comparing lithium with antipsychotic drugs as the sole treatment, more participants in the lithium group left the studies early (eight RCTs; n = 270, RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.11, low quality evidence).Thirteen studies examined whether the augmentation of antipsychotic drugs with lithium salts is more effective than antipsychotic drugs alone. More participants who received lithium augmentation had a clinically significant response (10 RCTs; n = 396, RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.97, low quality evidence). However, this effect became non-significant when we excluded participants with schizoaffective disorders in a sensitivity analysis (seven RCTs; n = 272, RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.81), when we excluded non-double-blind studies (seven RCTs; n = 224, RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.96), or when we excluded studies with high attrition (nine RCTs; n = 355, RR 1.67, CI 0.93 to 3.00). The overall acceptability of treatment (measured by the number of participants leaving the studies early) was not significantly different between groups (11 RCTs; n = 320, RR 1.89, CI 0.93 to 3.84, very low quality evidence). Few studies reported on side effects. There were no significant differences, but the database is too limited to make any judgement in this regard. For example, there were no data on thyroid dysfunction and kidney problems - two major and well-known side effects of lithium. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for the use of lithium in schizophrenia is limited to 22 studies of overall low methodological quality. There is no randomised trial-based evidence that lithium on its own is an effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. There is some GRADE low quality evidence that augmentation of antipsychotics with lithium is effective, but the effects are not significant when more prone-to-bias open RCTs are excluded. Nevertheless, further large and well-designed trials are justified. These should concentrate on two target groups: (1) people with no affective symptoms, so that trialists can determine whether lithium has an effect on the core symptoms of schizophrenia, and (2) people with schizoaffective disorders for whom lithium is widely used in clinical practice, although there is no evidence to support this use.

[Psychoeducation in Depression: Results of two Surveys five Years Apart in Germany, Austria and Switzerland]. / Psychoedukation bei Depression: Ergebnisse zweier Umfragen im Abstand von fünf Jahren in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz.

OBJECTIVE: Studies investigating the frequency of psychoeducation in depression for patients and their family members in hospital settings and assessing how psychoeducation is offered are lacking. METHODS: Two postal surveys were done five years apart addressing these questions to the heads of all psychiatric hospitals in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. RESULTS: 67 % of the participating hospitals offered psychoeducation in depression. 60 % of the patients treated in the hospitals participated in psychoeducation groups, whereas only 13 % of the family members did. In the mean, a single psychoeducational session lasted for 61 minutes (SD = 14), took place 1.4-times per week (SD = 0.5) and there were 7.4 sessions (SD = 2.8). 56 % of the moderators of the psychoeducational groups used a published manual for conducting the groups. CONCLUSION: The frequency of offering psychoeducation in depression for patients is almost comparable to that in schizophrenia. However, there is still room for improvement, especially when it comes to family psychoeducation in depression where all efforts need to be done to increase the number of groups offered in order to inform more families and help them coping with depression.

Using films as a psychoeducation tool for patients with schizophrenia: a pilot study using a quasi-experimental pre-post design.

BACKGROUND: Relapses and, subsequently, readmissions are common in patients with schizophrenia. Psychoeducation has been shown to reduce the number and duration of readmissions. Yet, only little more than 20% of psychiatric patients in German speaking countries receive psychoeducation. Among other reasons, costs may be considered too high by hospitals. The objective of the present study was to test the feasibility of a new cost-efficient approach in the psychoeducation of patients with schizophrenia. In this study, films were used to impart knowledge about the illness to inpatients. METHODS: A total of 113 participants were initially included in the study, eleven of which were not included in the final analyses. Six films about the symptoms, diagnosis, causes, warning signs, treatment of schizophrenia and about the influence of family members and friends were shown in a group setting in the presence of nursing staff. All films combined facts, expert opinions, and personal experiences of peers. As the main outcome criterion of this feasibility pilot study, we measured the effects on knowledge. Secondary outcome measures included compliance, insight into illness, side effects, and quality of life. Data were collected directly after the intervention and about half a year afterwards. The number and the duration of readmissions to the hospital were recorded and compared to the number and duration of prior admissions. Patients were also asked to state their subjective opinion about the films. Main data analyses were done using paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Secondary analyses also involved ANOVAs and ANCOVAs. RESULTS: One hundred and two inpatients were included in the data analyses. Showing the films in the tested setting was shown to be feasible. Knowledge about schizophrenia (p < .001), compliance (ps < .01), insight into illness (p < .01), and quality of life (p < .001) all increased significantly after patients had watched the films and remained stable for at least half a year. A vast majority (84.9%) of the patients found the films to be interesting and informative. CONCLUSIONS: Using films to educate inpatients about schizophrenia is a feasible method that is cost- and time-efficient and well received by the patients.

Checking the plausibility of psychiatrists׳ arguments for not prescribing depot medication.

Treatment with long-acting depot antipsychotics may yield beneficial effects with regard to long-term adherence and long term outcomes in patients with schizophrenia. However, the implementation of depot treatment is rather low in many settings. Research on this issue helped identifying various potential reasons for this pattern including patient refusal and negative attitudes of psychiatrists. Nevertheless no definite conclusion exists as to what actually hinders the wider implementation of depot treatment. To date there are no studies that surveyed this issue with regard to concrete patients and from both perspectives, of the psychiatrists and the related patients. In the present analysis we therefore analyzed psychiatrists׳ and patients׳ behavior regarding depot prescription in N=213 individual doctor-inpatient-dyads in German psychiatric hospitals. A high number of patients (30%) were actually prescribed depot at discharge, even more were informed about the possibility of depot treatment by their psychiatrists (47%). Moreover, 50% of the surveyed patients were generally open toward receiving depot antipsychotics. However, for the high number of patients not receiving depot (70%) the psychiatrists׳ arguments against depot were often implausible and therefore many more patients might be suitable for receiving depot treatment. Psychiatrists׳ hesitation to discuss and implement depot might also be founded in concerns regarding patients׳ acceptance of depot medication. Here doctors should be empowered by teaching communication strategies that may help to convince patients accept treatment.

Haloperidol versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often clinically perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds, and they also seem to differ in their side-effects. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects in clinical response of haloperidol and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials comparing haloperidol with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: The review currently includes 17 randomised trials and 877 participants. The size of the included studies was between 16 and 109 participants. All studies were short-term with a study length between two and 12 weeks. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. We found no clear evidence that haloperidol was superior to low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of clinical response (haloperidol 40%, low-potency drug 36%, 14 RCTs, n = 574, RR 1.11, CI 0.86 to 1.44 lowquality evidence). There was also no clear evidence of benefit for either group in acceptability of treatment with equivocal difference in the number of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (haloperidol 13%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 11 RCTs, n = 408, RR 0.82, CI 0.38 to 1.77, low quality evidence). Similar equivocal results were found between groups for experiencing at least one adverse effect (haloperidol 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 35%, 5 RCTs n = 158, RR 1.97, CI 0.69 to 5.66, very low quality evidence ). More participants from the low-potency drug group experienced sedation (haloperidol 14%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 2 RCTs, n = 44, RR 0.30, CI 0.11 to 0.82, moderate quality evidence), orthostasis problems (haloperidol 25%, low-potency antipsychotics 71%, 1 RCT, n = 41, RR 0.35, CI 0.16 to 0.78) and weight gain (haloperidol 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 29%, 3 RCTs, n = 88, RR 0.22, CI 0.06 to 0.81). In contrast, the outcome 'at least one movement disorder' was more frequent in the haloperidol group (haloperidol 72%, low-potency antipsychotics 41%, 5 RCTs, n = 170, RR 1.64, CI 1.22 to 2.21, low quality evidence). No data were available for death or quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results do not clearly show a superiority in efficacy of haloperidol compared with low-potency antipsychotics. Differences in adverse events were found for movement disorders, which were more frequent in the haloperidol group, and orthostatic problems, sedation and weight gain, which were more frequent in the low-potency antipsychotic group. The quality of studies was low, and the quality of evidence for the main outcomes of interest varied from moderate to very low, so more newer studies would be needed in order to draw a definite conclusion about whether or not haloperidol is superior or inferior to low-potency antipsychotics.

Carbamazepine for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with just antipsychotic drug treatment and various adjunct medications are used to promote additional response. The antiepileptic carbamazepine is one such drug. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine alone is an effective treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective psychoses and whether carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine augmentation of neuroleptic medication is an effective treatment for the same illnesses. SEARCH METHODS: For the original version we searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials (December 2001), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), EMBASE (1980-2001), Biological Abstracts (1980-2001), PsycLIT (1886-2001) and PSYNDEX (1974-2001). For the most recent update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials in July 2012. We also inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies and authors for additional data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carbamazepine or compounds of the carbamazepine family with placebo or no intervention, whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizoaffective psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect, risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We assessed the risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: The updated search did not reveal any further studies that met our inclusion criteria. The number of included studies therefore remains at 10 with the number of participants randomised still 283.One study comparing carbamazepine with placebo as the sole treatment for schizophrenia was abandoned early due to high relapse rate with 26 out of 31 participants relapsing by three months. No effect of carbamazepine was evident with no difference in relapse between the two groups (1 RCT n = 31, RR 1.07 CI 0.78 to 1.45). Another study compared carbamazepine with antipsychotics as the sole treatment for schizophrenia. No differences in terms of mental state were found when comparing 50% reduction in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores (1 RCT n = 38, RR 1.23 CI 0.78 to 1.92). A favourable effect for carbamazepine was found when more people who received the antipsychotic (perphenazine) had parkinsonism (1 RCT n = 38, RR 0.03 CI 0.00 to 0.043). Eight studies compared adjunctive carbamazepine versus adjunctive placebo, we were able use GRADE for quality of evidence for these results. Adding carbamazepine to antipsychotic treatment was as acceptable as adding placebo with no difference between the numbers leaving the study early from each group (8 RCTs n = 182, RR 0.47 CI 0.16 to 1.35, very low quality evidence). Carbamazepine augmentation was superior compared with antipsychotics alone in terms of overall global improvement, but participant numbers were low (2 RCTs n = 38, RR 0.57 CI 0.37 to 0.88). There were no differences for the mental state outcome of 50% reduction in BPRS scores (6 RCTs n = 147, RR 0.86 CI 0.67 to 1.12, low quality evidence). Less people in the carbamazepine augmentation group had movement disorders than those taking haloperidol alone (1 RCT n = 20, RR 0.38 CI 0.14 to 1.02). No data were available for the effects of carbamazepine on subgroups of people with schizophrenia and aggressive behaviour, negative symptoms or EEG abnormalities or with schizoaffective disorder. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on currently available randomised trial-derived evidence, carbamazepine cannot be recommended for routine clinical use for treatment or augmentation of antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenia. At present large, simple well-designed and reported trials are justified - especially if focusing on people with violent episodes and people with schizoaffective disorders or those with both schizophrenia and EEG abnormalities.

Efficacy of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for adult psychiatric disorders: a systematic overview of meta-analyses.

IMPORTANCE: There is debate about the effectiveness of psychiatric treatments and whether pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy should be primarily used. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic overview on the efficacy of pharmacotherapies and psychotherapies for major psychiatric disorders and to compare the quality of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy trials. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library (April 2012, with no time or language limit) for systematic reviews on pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy vs placebo, pharmacotherapy vs psychotherapy, and their combination vs either modality alone. Two reviewers independently selected the meta-analyses and extracted efficacy effect sizes. We assessed the quality of the individual trials included in the pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy meta-analyses with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. FINDINGS: The search yielded 45,233 results. We included 61 meta-analyses on 21 psychiatric disorders, which contained 852 individual trials and 137,126 participants. The mean effect size of the meta-analyses was medium (mean, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41-0.59). Effect sizes of psychotherapies vs placebo tended to be higher than those of medication, but direct comparisons, albeit usually based on few trials, did not reveal consistent differences. Individual pharmacotherapy trials were more likely to have large sample sizes, blinding, control groups, and intention-to-treat analyses. In contrast, psychotherapy trials had lower dropout rates and provided follow-up data. In psychotherapy studies, wait-list designs showed larger effects than did comparisons with placebo. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Many pharmacotherapies and psychotherapies are effective, but there is a lot of room for improvement. Because of the multiple differences in the methods used in pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy trials, indirect comparisons of their effect sizes compared with placebo or no treatment are problematic. Well-designed direct comparisons, which are scarce, need public funding. Because patients often benefit from both forms of therapy, research should also focus on how both modalities can be best combined to maximize synergy rather than debate the use of one treatment over the other.

Psychiatrist and patient responses to suspected medication nonadherence in schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term results in schizophrenia treatment continue to be unsatisfactory, with many patients nonadherent to treatment and relapsing frequently. This study aimed to examine how perceived nonadherence leads psychiatrists to implement adherence-enhancing measures and to identify barriers and facilitators for the implementation of adherence-enhancing measures. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with German hospital psychiatrists and their inpatients who had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 121 psychiatrists or resident psychiatrists and their 213 inpatients. Psychiatrists recognized nonadherence as an important factor for hospital admission only when directly asked about it. Psychiatrists implemented a plethora of adherence interventions that in many cases constituted only intensive talks and no structured interventions. Of four core interventions addressed in the survey-depot administration of medication, psychoeducation for patients, psychoeducation for relatives, and arrangement of first follow-up visit-the implementation rates were surprisingly high for depot prescription of antipsychotics (>30%) and psychoeducation for patients but dramatically low for arrangement of follow-up visits and psychoeducation for relatives. Patients with poor previous adherence (according to the physician's estimate) received more adherence measures. In addition, patients with involuntary admission were more likely to receive depot medications, and psychoeducation was more often implemented for younger patients and for patients at university hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment nonadherence is often underestimated by psychiatrists. Obstacles to the implementation of adherence-enhancing interventions occur in routine daily care. Integrated-care programs addressing adherence issues, communication between inpatient and outpatient treatment, implementation of adherence measures, and better involvement of patients in clinical decisions may help to overcome these barriers.

Trends and perspectives of shared decision-making in schizophrenia and related disorders.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a model of how doctors and patients make medical decisions, which is seen as very applicable to mental health. This review addresses the following issues: Do patients and professionals see the need for SDM? Does SDM actually take place for patients with schizophrenia? What are facilitators and barriers of SDM in schizophrenia treatment? What are the outcomes of SDM? RECENT FINDINGS: Publications in the last 18 months showed the following: Both patients and providers acknowledge the desirability of SDM. SDM occurs less often in mental health than desired by patients and less frequently compared with general practice. SDM in mental health is complex, takes time and involves more than just two participants; patients' lack of decisional capacity is seen as the major barrier. There are only a few interventional studies measuring the outcome of SDM; existing research constantly shows positive, but small effects. SUMMARY: SDM is highly accepted and wanted in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders, but more research is needed regarding how SDM can be implemented in regular care. Healthcare professionals need more training in how to deal with difficult decisional situations.

Effects of an integrated care program for outpatients with affective or psychotic disorders.

For many psychiatric conditions outcomes of standard care still fall short of outcomes that are possible according to research literature. One of the major reasons is patient׳s non-adherence to long-term medication. We performed a mirror image interventional study involving patients suffering from affective (N=219) or psychotic disorders (N=210) who participated in an integrated care program focusing on treatment adherence. The main outcome variable was the number of inpatients days during the integrated care program compared to the time before the program. The integrated care project studied showed a drop of inpatient days of approx. 75% within the 18-months observation period for both groups. In the affective (psychotic) sample inpatients days dropped from M=47.1 days (M=62.2 days) in the 18 months before the program to M=10.8 days (M=15.3 days) during the adherence program. Patients with affective disorders additionally profited with regard to symptom reduction, quality of life and self-reported adherence. Thus, a complex intervention addressing frequent weaknesses of routine psychiatric outpatient care and focussing on adherence and linking up outpatient services is effective with regard to the reduction of inpatient days for patients with affective and patients with schizophrenic disorders.

Effects of a question prompt sheet on active patient behaviour: a randomized controlled trial with depressed outpatients.

BACKGROUND: A deeper engagement into medical decision-making is demanded by treatment guidelines for patients with affective disorders. There is to date little evidence on what facilitates active behaviour of patients with depression. In general medicine 'question prompt sheets' (QPSs) have been shown to change patients' behaviour in the consultation and improve treatment satisfaction but there is no evidence for such interventions for mental health settings. AIMS: To study the effects of a QPS on active patient behaviour in the consultation. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial (involving N = 100 outpatients with depression) evaluating the effects of a QPS on patients' behaviour in the consultation. RESULTS: The QPS showed no influence on the number of topics raised by patients (p = .13) nor on the external rater's perception of 'Who made the decisions in today's consultation?' (p = .50). CONCLUSIONS: A QPS did not change depressed patients' behaviour in the consultation. More complex interventions might be needed to change depressed patients' behaviour within an established doctor-patient dyad. Patient seminars addressing behavioural aspects have been shown to be effective in other settings and may also be feasible for outpatients with affective disorders.

[Mental health at the workplace - the view of companies]. / Psychische Erkrankungen am Arbeitsplatz aus Sicht von Unternehmensmitarbeitern.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the views of employees (human resource, works council, supervisors, and executives) of German business companies and administrations toward the issue of mental health at the workplace. METHODS: Cross sectional survey of N = 348 employees with staff responsibility. RESULTS: Employees of German companies see their colleagues as moderately mentally stressed. About 14 % of all employees are judged to suffer from a mental disease. These numbers have risen in recent years. About 37 % of all mental illnesses are seen as caused by work conditions. The handling of mental illness at the workplace is seen as insufficient and in many cases stigmatizing. CONCLUSION: At least subjectively the issue of mental illness in the workplace has gained in importance in recent years. Possible interventions should especially address executives and supervisors.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The question of which antipsychotic drug should be preferred for the treatment of schizophrenia is controversial, and conventional pairwise meta-analyses cannot provide a hierarchy based on the randomised evidence. We aimed to integrate the available evidence to create hierarchies of the comparative efficacy, risk of all-cause discontinuation, and major side-effects of antipsychotic drugs. METHODS: We did a Bayesian-framework, multiple-treatments meta-analysis (which uses both direct and indirect comparisons) of randomised controlled trials to compare 15 antipsychotic drugs and placebo in the acute treatment of schizophrenia. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's specialised register, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for reports published up to Sept 1, 2012. Search results were supplemented by reports from the US Food and Drug Administration website and by data requested from pharmaceutical companies. Blinded, randomised controlled trials of patients with schizophrenia or related disorders were eligible. We excluded trials done in patients with predominant negative symptoms, concomitant medical illness, or treatment resistance, and those done in stable patients. Data for seven outcomes were independently extracted by two reviewers. The primary outcome was efficacy, as measured by mean overall change in symptoms. We also examined all-cause discontinuation, weight gain, extrapyramidal side-effects, prolactin increase, QTc prolongation, and sedation. FINDINGS: We identified 212 suitable trials, with data for 43 049 participants. All drugs were significantly more effective than placebo. The standardised mean differences with 95% credible intervals were: clozapine 0·88, 0·73-1·03; amisulpride 0·66, 0·53-0·78; olanzapine 0·59, 0·53-0·65; risperidone 0·56, 0·50-0·63; paliperidone 0·50, 0·39-0·60; zotepine 0·49, 0·31-0·66; haloperidol 0·45, 0·39-0·51; quetiapine 0·44, 0·35-0·52; aripiprazole 0·43, 0·34-0·52; sertindole 0·39, 0·26-0·52; ziprasidone 0·39, 0·30-0·49; chlorpromazine 0·38, 0·23-0·54; asenapine 0·38, 0·25-0·51; lurasidone 0·33, 0·21-0·45; and iloperidone 0·33, 0·22-0·43. Odds ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation ranged from 0·43 for the best drug (amisulpride) to 0·80 for the worst drug (haloperidol); for extrapyramidal side-effects 0·30 (clozapine) to 4·76 (haloperidol); and for sedation 1·42 (amisulpride) to 8·82 (clozapine). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for weight gain varied from -0·09 for the best drug (haloperidol) to -0·74 for the worst drug (olanzapine), for prolactin increase 0·22 (aripiprazole) to -1·30 (paliperidone), and for QTc prolongation 0·10 (lurasidone) to -0·90 (sertindole). Efficacy outcomes did not change substantially after removal of placebo or haloperidol groups, or when dose, percentage of withdrawals, extent of blinding, pharmaceutical industry sponsorship, study duration, chronicity, and year of publication were accounted for in meta-regressions and sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: Antipsychotics differed substantially in side-effects, and small but robust differences were seen in efficacy. Our findings challenge the straightforward classification of antipsychotics into first-generation and second-generation groupings. Rather, hierarchies in the different domains should help clinicians to adapt the choice of antipsychotic drug to the needs of individual patients. These findings should be considered by mental health policy makers and in the revision of clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: None.