Antipsychotic medication versus psychological intervention versus a combination of both in adolescents with first-episode psychosis (MAPS): a multicentre, three-arm, randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.
Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis.
We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14-18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data on trial referral and recruitment, session attendance or medication adherence, retention, and treatment acceptability) and the proposed primary efficacy outcome was total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at 6 months. Primary outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported according to as-treated status, for all patients who had received at least one session of CBT or family intervention, or at least one dose of antipsychotics. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433.
Of 101 patients referred to the study, 61 patients (mean age 16·3 years [SD 1·3]) were recruited from April 10, 2017, to Oct 31, 2018, 18 of whom were randomly assigned to psychological intervention, 22 to antipsychotics, and 21 to antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. The trial recruitment rate was 68% of our target sample size of 90 participants. The study had a low referral to recruitment ratio (around 2:1), a high rate of retention (51 [84%] participants retained at the 6-month primary endpoint), a high rate of adherence to psychological intervention (defined as six or more sessions of CBT; in 32 [82%] of 39 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups), and a moderate rate of adherence to antipsychotic medication (defined as at least 6 consecutive weeks of exposure to antipsychotics; in 28 [65%] of 43 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups). Mean scores for PANSS total at the 6-month primary endpoint were 68·6 (SD 17·3) for antipsychotic monotherapy (6·2 points lower than at randomisation), 59·8 (13·7) for psychological intervention (13·1 points lower than at randomisation), and 62·0 (15·9) for antipsychotics plus psychological intervention (13·9 points lower than at randomisation). A good clinical response at 6 months (defined as ≥50% improvement in PANSS total score) was achieved in four (22%) of 18 patients receiving antipsychotic monotherapy, five (31%) of 16 receiving psychological intervention, and five (29%) of 17 receiving antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. In as-treated groups, serious adverse events occurred in eight [35%] of 23 patients in the combined group, two [13%] of 15 in the antipsychotics group, four [24%] of 17 in the psychological intervention group, and four [80%] of five who did not receive any treatment. No serious adverse events were considered to be related to participation in the trial.
This trial is the first to show that a head-to-head clinical trial comparing psychological intervention, antipsychotics, and their combination is safe in young people with first-episode psychosis. However, the feasibility of a larger trial is unclear because of site-specific recruitment challenges, and amendments to trial design would be needed for an adequately powered clinical and cost-effectiveness trial that provides robust evidence.
National Institute for Health Research.
Morrison AP
，Pyle M
，Maughan D
，Johns L
，Freeman D
，Broome MR
，Husain N
，Fowler D
，Hudson J
，MacLennan G
，Norrie J
，Shiers D
，Hollis C
，James A
，MAPS group
... -
《Lancet Psychiatry》
Antipsychotic drugs versus cognitive behavioural therapy versus a combination of both in people with psychosis: a randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.
Little evidence is available for head-to-head comparisons of psychosocial interventions and pharmacological interventions in psychosis. We aimed to establish whether a randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus antipsychotic drugs versus a combination of both would be feasible in people with psychosis.
We did a single-site, single-blind pilot randomised controlled trial in people with psychosis who used services in National Health Service trusts across Greater Manchester, UK. Eligible participants were aged 16 years or older; met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service; were in contact with mental health services, under the care of a consultant psychiatrist; scored at least 4 on delusions or hallucinations items, or at least 5 on suspiciousness, persecution, or grandiosity items on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS); had capacity to consent; and were help-seeking. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, CBT, or antipsychotics plus CBT. Randomisation was done via a secure web-based randomisation system (Sealed Envelope), with randomised permuted blocks of 4 and 6, stratified by gender and first episode status. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant. Participants were followed up for 1 year. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data about recruitment, retention, and acceptability), and the primary efficacy outcome was the PANSS total score (assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks). Non-neurological side-effects were assessed systemically with the Antipsychotic Non-neurological Side Effects Rating Scale. Primary analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses were done on an as-treated basis. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN06022197.
Of 138 patients referred to the study, 75 were recruited and randomly assigned-26 to CBT, 24 to antipsychotics, and 25 to antipsychotics plus CBT. Attrition was low, and retention high, with only four withdrawals across all groups. 40 (78%) of 51 participants allocated to CBT attended six or more sessions. Of the 49 participants randomised to antipsychotics, 11 (22%) were not prescribed a regular antipsychotic. Median duration of total antipsychotic treatment was 44·5 weeks (IQR 26-51). PANSS total score was significantly reduced in the combined intervention group compared with the CBT group (-5·65 [95% CI -10·37 to -0·93]; p=0·019). PANSS total scores did not differ significantly between the combined group and the antipsychotics group (-4·52 [95% CI -9·30 to 0·26]; p=0·064) or between the antipsychotics and CBT groups (-1·13 [95% CI -5·81 to 3·55]; p=0·637). Significantly fewer side-effects, as measured with the Antipsychotic Non-neurological Side Effects Rating Scale, were noted in the CBT group than in the antipsychotics (3·22 [95% CI 0·58 to 5·87]; p=0·017) or antipsychotics plus CBT (3·99 [95% CI 1·36 to 6·64]; p=0·003) groups. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be related to the trial (an overdose of three paracetamol tablets in the CBT group).
A head-to-head clinical trial of CBT versus antipsychotics versus the combination of the two is feasible and safe in people with first-episode psychosis.
National Institute for Health Research.
Morrison AP
，Law H
，Carter L
，Sellers R
，Emsley R
，Pyle M
，French P
，Shiers D
，Yung AR
，Murphy EK
，Holden N
，Steele A
，Bowe SE
，Palmier-Claus J
，Brooks V
，Byrne R
，Davies L
，Haddad PM
... -
《Lancet Psychiatry》
Quetiapine extended release versus aripiprazole in children and adolescents with first-episode psychosis: the multicentre, double-blind, randomised tolerability and efficacy of antipsychotics (TEA) trial.
Head-to-head trials to guide antipsychotic treatment choices for paediatric psychosis are urgently needed because extrapolations from adult studies might not be implementable. In this superiority trial with two-sided significance testing, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of quetiapine-extended release (quetiapine-ER) versus aripiprazole in children and adolescents with first-episode psychosis, to determine whether differences between the two treatments were sufficient to guide clinicians in their choice of one drug over the other.
In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial in seven Danish university clinics, we recruited children and adolescents aged 12-17 years with a diagnosis of ICD-10 schizophrenia-spectrum disorder, delusional disorder, or affective-spectrum psychotic disorder, and psychotic symptoms scoring at least 4 on at least one of the following Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) items: P1 (delusions), P2 (conceptual disorganisation), P3 (hallucinations), P5 (grandiosity), P6 (suspiciousness/persecution), and G9 (unusual thought content), and a total PANSS score greater than 60. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to 12 weeks of treatment with target doses of 600 mg/day of quetiapine-ER (starting from 50 mg/day) or 20 mg/day of aripiprazole (starting from 2·5 mg/day). The assigned drug was titrated over five levels, with 2 days at each dose, and the final dose achieved on day 9. Randomisation was done using a computer-generated concealed sequence with a block size of 8, and stratified by baseline PANSS positive score (≤20 points or >20 points) and age (12-14 years or 15-17 years). Study drugs were administered in identical capsules, and interventions, assessments, and data analysis were done masked. The primary outcome was PANSS positive score. Key adverse outcomes were bodyweight, homoeostatic model of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), akathisia, and sedation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01119014.
Between June 10, 2010, and Jan 29, 2014, 231 participants were assessed for elegibility, of whom 113 were randomly assigned to quetiapine-ER (n=55) or aripiprazole (n=58). PANSS positive score did not differ between groups after 12 weeks (adjusted mean change -5·05 [5·46] for quetiapine-ER, -6·21 [5·42] for aripiprazole; p=0·98), but decreased over time in both groups (p<0·0001). Weight gain was more rapid with quetiapine-ER (p=0·0008), with an adjusted mean weight group difference at week 12 of 3·33 kg (SD 7·23; effect size 0·64; p<0·0001). The HOMA-IR group difference at week 12 favoured aripiprazole (adjusted mean log-transformed group difference 0·259 [SD 0·906]; effect size 0·35; p=0·0060). Akathisia was more common with aripiprazole at week 2 (observed in 34 [60%] of 57 patients; estimated 63·5%) than with quetiapine-ER (15 [30%] of 50; estimated 31·3%; p=0·0021), but not at other timepoints. Sedation proportions did not change significantly over time with either intervention (observed at weeks 2, 4, and 12, respectively, for quetiapine-ER in 43 [83%] of 52, 40 [83%] of 48, and 34 [72%] of 47 patients and for aripiprazole in 49 [89%] of 55, 52 [96%] of 54, and 44 [92%] of 48 patients), and the overall estimated probability combining all timepoints was significantly higher for aripiprazole (97·1%) than for quetiapine-ER (89·2%; p=0·012). In addition to sedation and akathisia, the most common adverse events were tremor (42 [79%] patients in the quetiapine-ER group vs 52 [91%] patients in the aripiprazole group), increased duration of sleep (47 [92%] vs 39 [71%]), orthostatic dizziness (42 [78%] vs 46 [81%]), depression (43 [80%] vs 44 [77%]), tension/inner unrest (37 [69%] vs 50 [88%]), failing memory (41 [76%] vs 44 [77%]), and weight gain (46 [87%] vs 38 [68%]).
This first head-to-head comparison of quetiapine-ER versus aripiprazole in early-onset psychosis showed no significant group differences in severity of psychopathology after 12 weeks of treatment. Quetiapine-ER was associated with more metabolic adverse events and aripiprazole with more initial akathisia and, unexpectedly, more sedation. The limited antipsychotic efficacy and high level of adverse events were noticeable. This trial provides novel information for the treatment of early-onset psychosis and highlights the importance of adverse event profiles when choosing among antipsychotics for children and adolescents who often require chronic treatment.
The National Research Council for Health and Disease Foundation for Health Promotion, AP Møller Foundation, Rosalie Petersens Foundation, Stevn and Rindom Foundation, Foundation for the Promotion of Medical Science, The Capital Region Psychiatric Research Foundation, Tryg Foundation, Region of Southern Denmark Research Foundation, Danish Psychiatric Research Educational Fund, Psychiatry Foundation, Foundation of 17-12-1981, Psychiatric Research Foundation Region Zealand, Capital Region Strategic Research Foundation, Knud og Dagny Andresens Foundation, Psychiatric Research Foundation of 1967, The Capital Region Research Foundation, Dr Sofus Carl Emil Friis and Hustru Olga Friis Scholarship, Tømrerhandler Johannes Fogs Foundation, Brdr Hartmanns Foundation DKK, Aase and Ejnar Danielsens Foundation, Jacob Madsen and wife Olga Madsens Foundation, CC Klestrup and wife Scholarship, Lundbeck Foundation Scholarship, and Tømrermester Jørgen Holm and wife Elisas Scholarship.
Pagsberg AK
，Jeppesen P
，Klauber DG
，Jensen KG
，Rudå D
，Stentebjerg-Olesen M
，Jantzen P
，Rasmussen S
，Saldeen EA
，Lauritsen MG
，Bilenberg N
，Stenstrøm AD
，Nyvang L
，Madsen S
，Werge TM
，Lange T
，Gluud C
，Skoog M
，Winkel P
，Jepsen JRM
，Fagerlund B
，Correll CU
，Fink-Jensen A
... -
《Lancet Psychiatry》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
