Schizophrenia Group's Register Research Articles

Risk assessment for aggressive behaviour in schizophrenia.

Aggressive or violent behaviour is often associated with people with schizophrenia in common perceptions of the disease. Risk assessment methods have been used to identify and evaluate the behaviour of those individuals who are at the greatest risk of perpetrating aggression or violence or characterise the likelihood to commit acts. Although many different interventions have been developed to decrease aggressive or violent incidences in inpatient care, staff working in inpatient settings seek easy-to-use methods to decrease patient aggressive events. However, many of these are time-consuming, and they require intensive training for staff and patient monitoring. It has also been recognised in clinical practice that if staff monitor patients' behaviour in a structured manner, the monitoring itself may result in a reduction of aggressive/violent behaviour and incidents in psychiatric settings. To assess the effects of structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP, on 10 February 2021. We also inspected references of all identified studies. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing structured risk assessment methods added to standard professional care with standard professional care for the evaluation of aggressive or violent behaviour among people with schizophrenia. At least two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data, and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies and created a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. We included four studies in the review. The total number of participants was not identifiable, as some studies provided number of participants included, and some only patient days. The studies compared a package of structured assessment methods with a control group that included routine nursing care and drug therapy or unstructured psychiatric observations/treatment based on clinical judgement. In two studies, information about treatment in control care was not available. One study reported results for our primary outcome, clinically important change in aggressive/violent behaviour, measured by the rate of severe aggression events. There was likely a positive effect favouring structured risk assessment over standard professional care (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85; 1 RCT; 1852 participants; corrected for cluster design: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial reported data for the use of coercive measures (seclusion room). Compared to standard professional care, structured risk assessment may have little or no effect on use of seclusion room as days (corrected for cluster design: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.07; N = 20; low-certainty evidence) or use of seclusion room as secluded participants (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.39 to 8.7; 1 RCT; N = 20; low-certainty evidence). However, seclusion room may be used less frequently in the standard professional care group compared to the structured risk assessment group (incidence) (corrected for cluster design: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.47; 1 RCT; N = 20; substantial heterogeneity, Chi2 = 0.0; df = 0.0; P = 0.0; I2 = 100%; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a clear effect on adverse events of escape (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); fall down (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); or choking (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence) when comparing structured risk assessment to standard professional care. There were no useable data for patient-related outcomes such as global state, acceptance of treatment, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, service use, or costs. Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude that structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods are effective for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. Future work should combine the use of interventions and structured risk assessment methods to prevent aggressive incidents in psychiatric inpatient settings.

Cognitive behavioural therapy added to standard care for first-episode and recent-onset psychosis.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in the general population of people with schizophrenia. It is still unclear whether CBT can be effectively used in the population of people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis. To assess the effects of adding cognitive behavioural therapy to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis. We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT added to standard care vs standard care in first-episode or recent-onset psychosis, in patients of any age. Two review authors (amongst SFM, CC, LK and IB) independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias using RoB2. Study authors were contacted for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured on a validated rating scale. Secondary outcomes included other specific measures of mental state, global state, relapse, admission to hospital, functioning, leaving the study early, cognition, quality of life, satisfaction with care, self-injurious or aggressive behaviour, adverse events, and mortality. We included 28 studies, of which 26 provided data on 2407 participants (average age 24 years). The mean sample size in the included studies was 92 participants (ranging from 19 to 444) and duration ranged between 26 and 52 weeks. When looking at the results at combined time points (mainly up to one year after start of the intervention), CBT added to standard care was associated with a greater reduction in overall symptoms of schizophrenia (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.08, 20 RCTs, n = 1508, I2 = 68%, substantial heterogeneity, low certainty of the evidence), and also with a greater reduction in positive (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.06, 22 RCTs, n = 1565, I² = 52%, moderate heterogeneity), negative (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.11, 22 RCTs, n = 1651, I² = 0%) and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.01, 18 RCTs, n = 1182, I² = 0%) than control. CBT added to standard care was also associated with a greater improvement in the global state (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.01, 4 RCTs, n = 329, I² = 47%, moderate heterogeneity) and in functioning (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.05, 18 RCTs, n = 1241, I² = 53%, moderate heterogeneity, moderate certainty of the evidence) than control. We did not find a difference between CBT added to standard care and control in terms of number of participants with relapse (relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.18, 7 RCTs, n = 693, I² = 48%, low certainty of the evidence), leaving the study early for any reason (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05, 25 RCTs, n = 2242, I² = 12%, moderate certainty of the evidence), adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.97, 1 RCT, n = 43, very low certainty of the evidence) and the other investigated outcomes. This review synthesised the latest evidence on CBT added to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis. The evidence identified by this review suggests that people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis may benefit from CBT additionally to standard care for multiple outcomes (overall, positive, negative and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia, global state and functioning). Future studies should better define this population, for which often heterogeneous definitions are used.

Cognitive behavioural therapy without medication for schizophrenia.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in people with schizophrenia when provided in combination with antipsychotic medication. It remains unclear whether CBT could be safely and effectively offered in the absence of concomitant antipsychotic therapy. To investigate the effects of CBT for schizophrenia when administered without concomitant pharmacological treatment with antipsychotics. We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with schizophrenia comparing CBT without antipsychotics to standard care, standard care without antipsychotics, or the combination of CBT and antipsychotics. Two review authors independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured with a validated rating scale. Key secondary outcomes were specific symptoms of schizophrenia, relapse, service use, number of participants leaving the study early, functioning, quality of life, and number of participants actually receiving antipsychotics during the trial. We also assessed behaviour, adverse effects, and mortality. We included 4 studies providing data for 300 participants (average age 21.94 years). The mean sample size was 75 participants (range 61 to 90 participants). Study duration was between 26 and 39 weeks for the intervention period and 26 to 104 weeks for the follow-up period. Three studies employed a blind rater, while one study was triple-blind. All analyses included data from a maximum of three studies. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. For the primary outcome overall symptoms of schizophrenia, results showed a difference favouring CBT without antipsychotics when compared to no specific treatment at long term (> 1 year mean difference measured with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS MD) -14.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.75 to -1.79, 1 RCT, n = 34). There was no difference between CBT without antipsychotics compared with antipsychotics (up to 12 months PANSS MD 3.38, 95% CI -2.38 to 9.14, 2 RCTs, n = 63) (very low-certainty evidence) or compared with CBT in combination with antipsychotics (up to 12 months standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.30, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.65, 3 RCTs, n = 125). Compared with no specific treatment, CBT without antipsychotics was associated with a reduction in overall symptoms (as described above) and negative symptoms (PANSS negative MD -4.06, 95% CI -7.50 to -0.62, 1 RCT, n = 34) at longer than 12 months. It was also associated with a lower duration of hospital stay (number of days in hospital MD -22.45, 95% CI -28.82 to -16.08, 1 RCT, n = 74) and better functioning (Personal and Social Performance Scale MD -12.42, 95% CI -22.75 to -2.09, 1 RCT, n = 40, low-certainty evidence) at up to 12 months. We did not find a difference between CBT and antipsychotics in any of the investigated outcomes, with the exception of adverse events measured with the Antipsychotic Non-Neurological Side-Effects Rating Scale (ANNSERS) at both 6 and 12 months (MD -4.94, 95% CI -8.60 to -1.28, 2 RCTs, n = 48; MD -6.96, 95% CI -11.55 to -2.37, 2 RCTs, n = 42). CBT without antipsychotics was less effective than CBT combined with antipsychotics in reducing positive symptoms at up to 12 months (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 126). CBT without antipsychotics was associated with a lower number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event in comparison with CBT combined with antipsychotics at up to 12 months (risk ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.80, 1 RCT, n = 39, low-certainty evidence). This review is the first attempt to systematically synthesise the evidence about CBT delivered without medication to people with schizophrenia. The limited number of studies and low to very low certainty of the evidence prevented any strong conclusions. An important limitation in the available studies was that participants in the CBT without medication group (about 35% on average) received antipsychotic treatment, highlighting the challenges of this approach. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to provide additional data on the feasibility and efficacy of CBT without antipsychotics.

Metabolic side effects in persons with schizophrenia during mid- to long-term treatment with antipsychotics: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Metabolic side effects of antipsychotic drugs can have serious health consequences and may increase mortality. Although persons with schizophrenia often take these drugs for a long time, their mid- to long-term metabolic effects have been studied little so far. This study aimed to evaluate the mid- to long-term metabolic side effects of 31 antipsychotics in persons with schizophrenia by applying a random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 27, 2020) and PubMed (up to June 14, 2021). We included published and unpublished, open and blinded randomized controlled trials with a study duration >13 weeks which compared any antipsychotic in any form of administration with another antipsychotic or with placebo in participants diagnosed with schizophrenia. The primary outcome was weight gain measured in kilograms. Secondary outcomes included "number of participants with weight gain", fasting glucose, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides. We identified 137 eligible trials (with 35,007 participants) on 31 antipsychotics, with a median follow-up of 45 weeks. Chlorpromazine produced the most weight gain (mean difference to placebo: 5.13 kg, 95% credible interval, CrI: 1.98 to 8.30), followed by clozapine (4.21 kg, 95% CrI: 3.03 to 5.42), olanzapine (3.82 kg, 95% CrI: 3.15 to 4.50), and zotepine (3.87 kg, 95% CrI: 2.14 to 5.58). The findings did not substantially change in sensitivity and network meta-regression analyses, although enriched design, drug company sponsorship, and the use of observed case instead of intention-to-treat data modified the mean difference in weight gain to some extent. Antipsychotics with more weight gain were often also among the drugs with worse outcome in fasting glucose and lipid parameters. The confidence in the evidence ranged from low to moderate. In conclusion, antipsychotic drugs differ in their propensity to induce metabolic side effects in mid- to long-term treatment. Given that schizophrenia is often a chronic disorder, these findings should be given more consideration than short-term data in drug choice.

Antipsychotic dose reduction compared to dose continuation for people with schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic dose reduction compared to dose continuation for people with schizophrenia.

The response of subgroups of patients with schizophrenia to different antipsychotic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

As comparatively few trials in subgroups of patients with schizophrenia have been done, clinicians need to know whether they can rely on the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the general population of patients with schizophrenia. We aimed to compare the efficacy and side-effects of antipsychotic drugs in different subgroups. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register (from database inception to April 27, 2020), and PubMed (from April 1, 2020 to June 14, 2021). We excluded studies in patients with stable schizophrenia (ie, relapse prevention studies), studies with a high risk of bias, and studies from mainland China due to quality concerns concerning allocation and masking methods. We included single-blind RCTs or better that assessed one or more of 16 second-generation and 18 first-generation antipsychotics in the general population of patients with schizophrenia or in one or more of the subgroups: children and adolescents (age range as defined in the original studies), patients with a first episode, patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, patients with comorbid substance use, patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, or older patients (age range as defined in the original studies). Two authors independently screened the results of the search, retrieved full-text articles, and checked the inclusion criteria. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, all parameters were extracted in duplicate. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms. We compared drug efficacy between subgroups, by sex, schizoaffective disorder versus schizophrenia, and study origin using random-effects, inverse variance meta-analyses and random-effects subgroup tests, and meta-regression. We included 537 RCTs with 76 382 participants, 26 627 (34·9%) women, 49 755 (65·1%) men, mean age 37·3 years (range of means 7·9-80·2; ethnicity data not available). 412 RCTs included patients in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, 42 included patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, 25 included children and adolescents, 20 included patients with their first episode, 20 included patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, 13 included patients with comorbid substance use, and 11 included older patients. Of 507 random-effects subgroup tests done, 46 (9%) showed a significant difference (p<0·05) between subgroups, but there was no clear indication as to which drug should be used in which subgroup. The effects of antipsychotics in various patient subgroups were usually similar to those in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, but comparably few studies contributed to the subgroups, in particular in terms of side-effects. If the evidence for treatment in a given subgroup is small, guideline makers and clinicians should consider using the results in the much better studied group of the general population of patients with schizophrenia. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; FKZ 01KG1508).

Antipsychotics for schizophrenia spectrum disorders with catatonic symptoms.

Antipsychotics for schizophrenia spectrum disorders with catatonic symptoms.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (group) for schizophrenia.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (group) for schizophrenia.

Humour-based interventions for people with schizophrenia.

Humour-based interventions are defined as any intervention that promotes health and wellness by stimulating a playful discovery, expression, or appreciation of the absurdity or incongruity of life's situations. Humour-based interventions can be implemented in different settings, including hospitals, nursing homes and day care centres. They have been posed as an adjunct to usual care for people with schizophrenia, but a summary of the evidence is lacking. To examine the effects of humour-based interventions as an add-on intervention to standard care for people with schizophrenia. On 31 July 2019 and 10 February 2021 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's study-based register of trials, which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP. We included all randomised controlled trials comparing humour-based interventions with active controls, other psychological interventions, or standard care for people with schizophrenia. We excluded studies fulfilling our prespecified selection criteria but without useable data from further quantitative synthesis. Two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality, following the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For binary outcomes we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean differences (MDs) and their 95% CIs. We assessed risks of bias for included studies and created summary of findings tables using the GRADE approach. We included three studies in this review for qualitative synthesis, although one study did not report any relevant outcomes. We therefore include two studies (n = 96) in our quantitative synthesis. No data were available on the following prespecified primary outcomes: clinically-important change in general mental state, clinically-important change in negative symptoms, clinically-important change in overall quality of life, and adverse effects. As compared with active control, humour-based interventions may not improve the average endpoint score of a general mental state scale (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score: MD -1.70, 95% CI -17.01 to 13.61; 1 study, 30 participants; very low certainty of evidence); positive symptoms (PANSS positive symptom score: MD 0.00, 95% CI -2.58 to 2.58; 1 study, 30 participants; low certainty of evidence), negative symptoms (PANSS negative symptom score: MD -0.70, 95% CI -4.22 to 2.82; 1 study, 30 participants; very low certainty of evidence) and anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI): MD -2.60, 95% CI -5.76 to 0.56; 1 study, 30 participants; low certainty of evidence). Due to the small sample size, we remain uncertain about the effect of humour-based interventions on leaving the study early as compared with active control (no event, 1 study, 30 participants; very low certainty of evidence). On the other hand, humour-based interventions may reduce depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI): MD -6.20, 95% CI -12.08 to -0.32; 1 study, 30 participants; low certainty of evidence). Compared with standard care, humour-based interventions may not improve depressive symptoms (BDI second edition: MD 0.80, 95% CI -2.64 to 4.24; 1 study, 59 participants; low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of humour-based interventions on leaving the study early for any reason compared with standard care (risk ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.80; 1 study, 66 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We are currently uncertain whether the evidence supports the use of humour-based interventions in people with schizophrenia. Future research with rigorous and transparent methodology investigating clinically important outcomes is warranted.

Video games for people with schizophrenia.

Video games for people with schizophrenia.

Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.

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. To review the effects of maintaining antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia compared to withdrawing these agents. 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). We included all randomised trials comparing maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs and placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses. 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. 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). 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.

Psychological interventions for psychosis in adolescents.

Psychological interventions for psychosis in adolescents.

Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve satisfactory improvements in their mental state, particularly the symptom of hearing voices (hallucinations), with medical treatment. To examine the effects of Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders. In December 2016, November 2018 and April 2019, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including registries of clinical trials) was searched, review authors checked references of all identified relevant reports to identify more studies and contacted authors of trials for additional information. All randomised clinical trials focusing on Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders. We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CIs. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in; mental state, insight, global state, quality of life and functioning as well as adverse effects and leaving the study early. We found 14 potentially relevant references for three studies (participants = 195) comparing Avatar Therapy with two other interventions; treatment as usual or supportive counselling. Both Avatar Therapy and supportive counselling were given in addition (add-on) to the participants' normal care. All of the studies had high risk of bias across one or more domains for methodology and, for other risks of bias, authors from one of the studies were involved in the development of the avatar systems on trial and in another trial, authors had patents on the avatar system pending. 1. Avatar Therapy compared with treatment as usual When Avatar Therapy was compared with treatment as usual average endpoint Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Positive (PANSS-P) scores were not different between treatment groups (MD -1.93, 95% CI -5.10 to 1.24; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). A measure of insight (Revised Beliefs about Voices Questionnaire; BAVQ-R) showed an effect in favour of Avatar Therapy (MD -5.97, 95% CI -10.98 to -0.96; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). No one was rehospitalised in either group in the short term (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.20; studies = 1, participants = 19; low-certainty evidence). Numbers leaving the study early from each group were not clearly different - although more did leave from the Avatar Therapy group (6/14 versus 0/12; RR 11.27, 95% CI 0.70 to 181.41; studies = 1, participants = 26; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in anxiety between treatment groups (RR 5.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 89.80; studies = 1, participants = 19; low-certainty evidence). For quality of life, average Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (QLESQ-SF) scores favoured Avatar Therapy (MD 9.99, 95% CI 3.89 to 16.09; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported data for functioning. 2. Avatar Therapy compared with supportive counselling When Avatar Therapy was compared with supportive counselling (all short-term), general mental state (Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale (PSYRATS)) scores favoured the Avatar Therapy group (MD -4.74, 95% CI -8.01 to -1.47; studies = 1, participants = 124; low-certainty evidence). For insight (BAVQ-R), there was a small effect in favour of Avatar Therapy (MD -8.39, 95% CI -14.31 to -2.47; studies = 1, participants = 124; low-certainty evidence). Around 20% of each group left the study early (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.89; studies = 1, participants = 150; moderate-certainty evidence). Analysis of quality of life scores (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA)) showed no clear difference between groups (MD 2.69, 95% CI -1.48 to 6.86; studies = 1, participants = 120; low-certainty evidence). No data were available for rehospitalisation rates, adverse events or functioning. Our analyses of available data shows few, if any, consistent effects of Avatar Therapy for people living with schizophrenia who experience auditory hallucinations. Where there are effects, or suggestions of effects, we are uncertain because of their risk of bias and their unclear clinical meaning. The theory behind Avatar Therapy is compelling but the practice needs testing in large, long, well-designed, well-reported randomised trials undertaken with help from - but not under the direction of - Avatar Therapy pioneers.

Parenting interventions for people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness

BACKGROUND Around a third of people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness will be a parent. Both the parents and the children in this population are at increased risk of adverse outcomes due to parental mental illness. Parenting interventions are known to improve parenting skills and decrease child disruptive behaviour. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the evidence base for parenting interventions designed specifically for parents who have schizophrenia or related serious mental illness. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of parenting interventions for people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness. SEARCH METHODS On 10 February 2021 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on the following: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. SELECTION CRITERIA Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared parenting interventions with a control condition for people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness with a child between the ages of 0 and 18 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. We assessed risk of bias for included studies. MAIN RESULTS We only included one trial (n = 50), and it was not possible to extract any data because the authors did not provide any means and standard deviations for our outcomes of interest; they only reported whether outcomes were significant or not at the 0.05 level. Three domains of the trial were rated as having a high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The only included trial provided inconclusive evidence. There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations to people with schizophrenia (or related serious mental illness) or clinicians, or for policy changes. Although there is no RCT evidence, parenting interventions for people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness have been developed. Future research should test these in RCTs in order to improve the evidence base for this population.

Modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

Modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

Treatments for primary delusional infestation

Primary delusional infestation (DI) is a primary psychiatric disorder characterised by delusions and abnormal tactile sensations. The pathophysiology is undecided and treatment includes both pharmacological and non-pharmacological options. There is currently no Cochrane Review of the treatments used. Primary DI is a diagnosis often encountered by both dermatologists and psychiatrists, with a large associated disease burden. To evaluate the effectiveness of different treatments in primary delusional infestation (DI). On 24 December 2014 and 19 March 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including registries of clinical trials. Randomised controlled trials involving the treatment of adults with primary DI. Two review authors independently screened and assessed studies for inclusion using pre-specified inclusion criteria. We did not identify any studies for inclusion. Currently there is no evidence from RCTs available to compare treatment of primary DI with placebo. We cannot, therefore, make any conclusions regarding the effects of treatments (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) for primary DI. This lack of evidence for treatment of primary DI has implications for research and practice. Robust randomised trials are indicated.

Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) for schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia is a serious chronic mental illness affecting an estimated 21 million people worldwide and there is increasing evidence linking inflammation in the brain to the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. Antipsychotic drugs are the conventional treatment for people with schizophrenia but are not always fully effective. Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with properties that inhibit the proinflammatory status of the brain. Using aspirin as an adjunct (add-on) treatment to antipsychotics or as a stand-alone treatment could be a novel, relatively inexpensive option for people with schizophrenia. To review the effects of acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) as adjunct (add-on) or as stand-alone treatment for people with schizophrenia. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last search 8 March 2018) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PsycINFO and registries of Clinical Trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. Randomised clinical trials focusing on aspirin for people with schizophrenia. We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. We included two studies, both comparing the effects of adding aspirin to standard antipsychotic treatment with adding placebo to standard antipsychotic treatment. We were hoping to find high-quality data for seven main outcomes of importance: clinically important change in global state, mental state, cognitive functioning and quality of life, numbers leaving the study early, incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and hospital admission. Clinically important change data were not reported. Global state data were reported by one study as 'unspecified problem necessitating change in dose or type of antipsychotics'; there was no clear difference between treatment groups for this outcome (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.88; studies = 1; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence). Both trials measured mental state using the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS), and mean total PANSS endpoint scores favoured the adjunct aspirin group in the medium term (MD -6.56, 95% CI -12.04 to -1.08; studies = 2; participants = 130; very low-quality evidence). Less than 10% of each group's participants left the studies early (for any reason) and by around three months there was no clear difference between numbers leaving early from the aspirin group compared to numbers leaving early from the placebo group suggesting aspirin is acceptable (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.14; studies = 2; participants = 130; very low-quality evidence). There was some gastric upset in both groups but rates were not clearly different between the treatment groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.94; studies = 1; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence). We are unclear if 'change in hospital status' is an unfavourable outcome or not as one study reported equivocal data (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.90; studies = 1; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence). It should be noted that all the above results were based on data of very low-quality and were difficult to interpret for clinicians or patients, and that the two studies, completed in the last decade, failed to report any usable outcomes on cognitive functioning or quality of life. We highlighted the evidence that some pioneering researchers feel this question is important enough to merit testing in randomised trials. However, we also highlighted that the evidence produced from these trials was weak and inconclusive. It was impossible to draw clear conclusions on the therapeutic value of aspirin for schizophrenia from these short, small and limited trials.

Benzodiazepines for catatonia in people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illnesses.

Catatonia is a debilitating disorder of movement and volition associated with schizophrenia and some other mental illnesses. People with catatonia are more likely to require hospitalisation and highly supervised care than those without the disorder. They also have an increased risk of secondary complications such as pneumonia, malnutrition and dehydration. The mainstay of treatment has been drug therapies and electroconvulsive therapy. To compare the effects of benzodiazepines with other drugs, placebo or electroconvulsive therapy for catatonia in people with schizophrenia or other similar serious mental illnesses (SMIs). We updated our previous search (28 February 2007) by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (9 November 2016; 6 February 2019). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register. We also manually searched reference lists from studies selected by the search. All controlled clinical trials that randomised people who have schizophrenia or other similar SMI and experiencing catatonia to receive benzodiazepines or another relevant treatment. We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported usable data. We excluded those not meeting our inclusion criteria or those not reporting usable data. We contacted authors when we required further information; and if we received no response, we put those studies aside as 'awaiting assessment'. Review authors extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis using a fixed-effect model. We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for the included study and generated a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. The searches found 130 citations, from which we could identify 22 possibly relevant studies. From these, we could only include one study. This study had a relatively small sample size of 17 participants who received lorazepam or oxazepam and were drug free for one week before the trial started. The only usable data reported by this study were clinically important change in symptoms of catatonia measured as 50% improvement on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). There was no difference in the numbers of participants showing a clinically important change in their catatonic symptoms (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.16; participants = 17; studies = 1; very low quality evidence).No data were reported for other important outcomes of hospital stay, clinically important change in satisfaction with care, global state, adverse effects or general functioningWe did find a few studies meeting our inclusion criteria but they reported no usable data. We had to exclude these. Although poorly reported, these studies do illustrate that relevant studies have been undertaken - they are not impossible to design and conduct. Analysis of the results from this review, which was a head-to-head comparison of two benzodiazepine monotherapies, does not show a clear difference in effect. No data were available for benzodiazepines compared to placebo or standard care. The lack of usable data and very low quality of data available makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions and further studies with a high-quality methodology and reporting are required in order to determine more definitively the outcomes associated with benzodiazepine use in the clinical management of catatonia in persons with schizophrenia and other SMI.

Haloperidol discontinuation for people with schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia is a disabling serious mental illness that can be chronic. Haloperidol, one of the first generation of antipsychotic drugs, is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia but can have adverse side effects. The effects of stopping haloperidol in people with schizophrenia who are stable on their prescription are not well researched in the context of systematic reviews. To review the effects of haloperidol discontinuation in people with schizophrenia who are stable on haloperidol. On 20 February 2015, 24 May 2017, and 12 January 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including trial registers. We included clinical trials randomising adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving haloperidol, and were stable. We included trials that randomised such participants to either continue their current treatment with haloperidol or discontinue their haloperidol treatment. We included trials that met our selection criteria and reported usable data. We independently checked all records retrieved from the search and obtained full reports of relevant records for closer inspection. We extracted data from included studies independently. All usable data were dichotomous, and we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias within the included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table. We included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 232 participants comparing haloperidol discontinuation with haloperidol continuation. Discontinuation was achieved in all five studies by replacing haloperidol with placebo. The trials' size ranged between 23 and 87 participants. The methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were poorly reported.Participants allocated to discontinuing haloperidol treatment were more likely to show no improvement in global state compared with those in the haloperidol continuation group (n = 49; 1 RCT; RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.20; very low quality evidence: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited due to relevant methodological shortcomings of included trials). Those who continued haloperidol treatment were less likely to experience a relapse compared to people who discontinued taking haloperidol (n = 165; 4 RCTs; RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.74; very low quality evidence). Satisfaction with treatment (measured as numbers leaving the study early) was similar between groups (n = 43; 1 RCT; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.28; very low quality evidence).No usable mental state, general functioning, general behaviour or adverse effect data were reported by any of the trials. This review provides limited evidence derived from small, short-term studies. The longest study was for one year, making it difficult to generalise the results to a life-long disorder. Very low quality evidence shows that discontinuation of haloperidol is associated with an increased risk of relapse and a reduction in the risk of 'global state improvement'. However, participant satisfaction with haloperidol treatment was not different from participant satisfaction with haloperidol discontinuation as measured by leaving the studies early. Due to the very low quality of these results, firm conclusions cannot be made. In addition, the available studies did not report usable data regarding the adverse effects of haloperidol treatment.Considering that haloperidol is one of the most widely used antipsychotic drugs, it was surprising that only a small number of studies into the benefit and harm of haloperidol discontinuation were available. Moreover, the available studies did not report on outcomes that are important to clinicians and to people with schizophrenia, particularly adverse effects and social outcomes. Better designed trials are warranted.

Peer support for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illness.

Peer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness. To assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status. We selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse). The authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach. This review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes. Currently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.