Differences in Patterns of Stimulant Use and Their Impact on First-Episode Psychosis Incidence: An Analysis of the EUGEI Study.

BACKGROUND: Use of illegal stimulants is associated with an increased risk of psychotic disorder. However, the impact of stimulant use on odds of first-episode psychosis (FEP) remains unclear. Here, we aimed to describe the patterns of stimulant use and examine their impact on odds of FEP. METHODS: We included patients with FEP aged 18-64 years who attended psychiatric services at 17 sites across 5 European countries and Brazil, and recruited controls representative of each local population (FEP = 1130; controls = 1497). Patterns of stimulant use were described. We computed fully adjusted logistic regression models (controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, cannabis use, and education level) to estimate their association with odds of FEP. Assuming causality, we calculated the population-attributable fractions for stimulant use associated with the odds for FEP. FINDINGS: Prevalence of lifetime and recent stimulant use in the FEP sample were 14.50% and 7.88% and in controls 10.80% and 3.8%, respectively. Recent and lifetime stimulant use was associated with increased odds of FEP compared with abstainers [fully adjusted odds ratio 1.74,95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-2.54, P = .004 and 1.62, 95% CI 1.25-2.09, P < .001, respectively]. According to PAFs, a substantial number of FEP cases (3.35% [95% CI 1.31-4.78] for recent use and 7.61% [95% CI 3.68-10.54] for lifetime use) could have been prevented if stimulants were no longer available and the odds of FEP and PAFs for lifetime and recent stimulant use varied across countries. INTERPRETATION: Illegal stimulant use has a significant and clinically relevant influence on FEP incidence, with varying impacts across countries.

Assessment of School Anti-Bullying Interventions: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Bullying is a prevalent and modifiable risk factor for mental health disorders. Although previous studies have supported the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs; their population impact and the association of specific moderators with outcomes are still unclear. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of school anti-bullying interventions, their population impact, and the association between moderator variables and outcomes. Data Sources: A search of Ovid MEDLINE, ERIC, and PsycInfo databases was conducted using 3 sets of search terms to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing anti-bullying interventions published from database inception through February 2020. A manual search of reference lists of articles included in previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses was also performed. Study Selection: The initial literature search yielded 34 798 studies. Included in the study were articles that (1) assessed bullying at school; (2) assessed the effectiveness of an anti-bullying program; (3) had an RCT design; (4) reported results; and (5) were published in English. Of 16 707 studies identified, 371 met the criteria for review of full-text articles; 77 RCTs were identified that reported data allowing calculation of effect sizes (ESs). Of these, 69 independent trials were included in the final meta-analysis database. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Random-effects and meta-regression models were used to derive Cohen d values with pooled 95% CIs as estimates of ES and to test associations between moderator variables and ES estimates. Population impact number (PIN), defined as the number of children in the total population for whom 1 event may be prevented by an intervention, was used as an estimate of the population impact of universal interventions targeting all students, regardless of individual risk. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes are the effectiveness (measured by ES) and the population impact (measured by the PIN) of anti-bullying interventions on the following 8 variable categories: overall bullying, bullying perpetration, bullying exposure, cyberbullying, attitudes that discourage bullying, attitudes that encourage bullying, mental health problems (eg, anxiety and depression), and school climate as well as the assessment of potential assocations between trial or intervention characteristics and outcomes. Results: This study included 77 samples from 69 RCTs (111 659 participants [56 511 in the intervention group and 55 148 in the control group]). The weighted mean (range) age of participants in the intervention group was 11.1 (4-17) years and 10.8 (4-17) years in the control group. The weighted mean (range) proportion of female participants in the intervention group was 49.9% (0%-100%) and 50.5% (0%-100%) in the control group. Anti-bullying interventions were efficacious in reducing bullying (ES, -0.150; 95% CI, -0.191 to -0.109) and improving mental health problems (ES, -0.205; 95% CI, -0.277 to -0.133) at study end point, with PINs for universal interventions that target the total student population of 147 (95% CI, 113-213) and 107 (95% CI, 73-173), respectively. Duration of intervention was not statistically significantly associated with intervention effectiveness (mean [range] duration of interventions, 29.4 [1 to 144] weeks). The effectiveness of anti-bullying programs did not diminish over time during follow-up (mean [range] follow-up, 30.9 [2-104] weeks). Conclusions and Relevance: Despite the small ESs and some regional differences in effectiveness, the population impact of school anti-bullying interventions appeared to be substantial. Better designed trials that assess optimal intervention timing and duration are warranted.

Dietary Interventions for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Dietary interventions such as restrictive diets or supplements are common treatments for young people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Evidence for the efficacy of these interventions is still controversial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of specific dietary interventions on symptoms, functions, and clinical domains in subjects with ASD by using a meta-analytic approach. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Embase databases. STUDY SELECTION: We selected placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy of dietary interventions in ASD published from database inception through September 2017. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcome variables were subsumed under 4 clinical domains and 17 symptoms and/or functions groups. Hedges' adjusted g values were used as estimates of the effect size of each dietary intervention relative to placebo. RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, we examined 27 double-blind, randomized clinical trials, including 1028 patients with ASD: 542 in the intervention arms and 486 in the placebo arms. Participant-weighted average age was 7.1 years. Participant-weighted average intervention duration was 10.6 weeks. Dietary supplementation (including omega-3, vitamin supplementation, and/or other supplementation), omega-3 supplementation, and vitamin supplementation were more efficacious than the placebo at improving several symptoms, functions, and clinical domains. Effect sizes were small (mean Hedges' g for significant analyses was 0.31), with low statistical heterogeneity and low risk of publication bias. LIMITATIONS: Methodologic heterogeneity among the studies in terms of the intervention, clinical measures and outcomes, and sample characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis does not support nonspecific dietary interventions as treatment of ASD but suggests a potential role for some specific dietary interventions in the management of some symptoms, functions, and clinical domains in patients with ASD.