Comparative effects of pharmacological interventions for the acute and long-term management of insomnia disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently used worldwide. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the acute and long-term treatment of adults with insomnia disorder. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and websites of regulatory agencies from database inception to Nov 25, 2021, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments or placebo as monotherapy for the treatment of adults (≥18 year) with insomnia disorder. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, quality of sleep measured by any self-rated scale), treatment discontinuation for any reason and due to side-effects specifically, and safety (ie, number of patients with at least one adverse event) both for acute and long-term treatment. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PU4QJ. FINDINGS: We included 170 trials (36 interventions and 47 950 participants) in the systematic review and 154 double-blind, randomised controlled trials (30 interventions and 44 089 participants) were eligible for the network meta-analysis. In terms of acute treatment, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than placebo (SMD range: 0·36-0·83 [CINeMA estimates of certainty: high to moderate]). Benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD 0·27-0·71 [moderate to very low]). Intermediate-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and eszopiclone had fewer discontinuations due to any cause than ramelteon (OR 0·72 [95% CI 0·52-0·99; moderate], 0·70 [0·51-0·95; moderate] and 0·71 [0·52-0·98; moderate], respectively). Zopiclone and zolpidem caused more dropouts due to adverse events than did placebo (zopiclone: OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·28-3·13; very low]; zolpidem: 1·79 [1·25-2·50; moderate]); and zopiclone caused more dropouts than did eszopiclone (OR 1·82 [95% CI 1·01-3·33; low]), daridorexant (3·45 [1·41-8·33; low), and suvorexant (3·13 [1·47-6·67; low]). For the number of individuals with side-effects at study endpoint, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were worse than placebo, doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon (OR range 1·27-2·78 [high to very low]). For long-term treatment, eszopiclone and lemborexant were more effective than placebo (eszopiclone: SMD 0·63 [95% CI 0·36-0·90; very low]; lemborexant: 0·41 [0·04-0·78; very low]) and eszopiclone was more effective than ramelteon (0.63 [0·16-1·10; very low]) and zolpidem (0·60 [0·00-1·20; very low]). Compared with ramelteon, eszopiclone and zolpidem had a lower rate of all-cause discontinuations (eszopiclone: OR 0·43 [95% CI 0·20-0·93; very low]; zolpidem: 0·43 [0·19-0·95; very low]); however, zolpidem was associated with a higher number of dropouts due to side-effects than placebo (OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·11-3·70; very low]). INTERPRETATION: Overall, eszopiclone and lemborexant had a favorable profile, but eszopiclone might cause substantial adverse events and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive. Doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon were well tolerated, but data on efficacy and other important outcomes were scarce and do not allow firm conclusions. Many licensed drugs (including benzodiazepines, daridorexant, suvorexant, and trazodone) can be effective in the acute treatment of insomnia but are associated with poor tolerability, or information about long-term effects is not available. Melatonin, ramelteon, and non-licensed drugs did not show overall material benefits. These results should serve evidence-based clinical practice. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Real-world outcomes of concomitant antidepressant and statin use in primary care patients with depression: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are licensed for use in depressive disorders, but non-response and poor adherence to treatment affect a considerable number of patients. Pre-clinical and clinical evidence suggest that statins can augment the effects of antidepressants. However, the acceptability and tolerability of combining statins with antidepressants are unclear, and their add-on efficacy has only been shown in small, short-term clinical trials. Observational data can provide complementary information about treatment effects on larger samples over longer follow-ups. In this study, we therefore assessed the real-world acceptability, tolerability, and efficacy of concomitant antidepressant and statin treatment in depression. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study investigating QResearch primary care research database, which comprises the anonymised electronic healthcare records of 35 + million patients over 1574 English general practices. Patients aged 18-100 years, registered between January 1998 and August 2020, diagnosed with a new episode of depression, and commencing an antidepressant were included. Using a between-subject design, we identified two study groups: antidepressant + statin versus antidepressant-only prescriptions. Outcomes of interest included the following: antidepressant treatment discontinuations due to any cause (acceptability) and due to any adverse event (tolerability) and effects on depressive symptoms (efficacy) measured as response, remission, and change in depression score on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. All outcomes were assessed at 2, 6, and 12 months using multivariable regression analyses, adjusted for relevant confounders, to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) or mean differences (aMDs) with 99% confidence intervals (99% CIs). RESULTS: Compared to antidepressant-only (N 626,335), antidepressant + statin (N 46,482) was associated with higher antidepressant treatment acceptability (aOR2months 0.88, 99% CI 0.85 to 0.91; aOR6months 0.81, 99% CI 0.79 to 0.84; aOR12months 0.78, 99% CI 0.75 to 0.81) and tolerability (aOR2months 0.92, 99% CI 0.87 to 0.98; aOR6months 0.94, 99% CI 0.89 to 0.99, though not long term aOR12 months 1.02, 99% CI 0.97 to 1.06). Efficacy did not differ between groups (range aOR2-12 months 1.00 and 1.02 for response and remission, range aOR2-12 months - 0.01 and - 0.02 for change in depression score). CONCLUSIONS: On real-world data, there is a positive correlation between antidepressant treatment adherence and statin use, partly explained by fewer dropouts due to adverse events. The main limitation of our study is its observational design, which restricts the potential to make causal inferences.

Development and validation of a meta-learner for combining statistical and machine learning prediction models in individuals with depression.

BACKGROUND: The debate of whether machine learning models offer advantages over standard statistical methods when making predictions is ongoing. We discuss the use of a meta-learner model combining both approaches as an alternative. METHODS: To illustrate the development of a meta-learner, we used a dataset of 187,757 people with depression. Using 31 variables, we aimed to predict two outcomes measured 60 days after initiation of antidepressant treatment: severity of depressive symptoms (continuous) and all-cause dropouts (binary). We fitted a ridge regression and a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) deep neural network as two separate prediction models ("base-learners"). We then developed two "meta-learners", combining predictions from the two base-learners. To compare the performance across the different methods, we calculated mean absolute error (MAE, for continuous outcome) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, for binary outcome) using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Compared to the best performing base-learner (MLP base-learner, MAE at 4.63, AUC at 0.59), the best performing meta-learner showed a 2.49% decrease in MAE at 4.52 for the continuous outcome and a 6.47% increase in AUC at 0.60 for the binary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A meta-learner approach may effectively combine multiple prediction models. Choosing between statistical and machine learning models may not be necessary in practice.

The transition from restrictive anorexia nervosa to binging and purging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Numerous studies addressed the topic of behavioral and symptomatic changes in eating disorders. Rates of transition vary widely across studies, ranging from 0 to 70.8%, depending on the diagnoses taken into account and the study design. Evidence shows that the specific transition from restrictive-type anorexia nervosa (AN-R) to disorders involving binging and purging behaviors (BPB) is related to a worsening of the clinical picture and worse long-term outcomes. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to focus on this specific transition, review existing literature, and summarize related risk factors. Medline and PsycINFO databases were searched, including prospective and retrospective studies on individuals with AN-R. The primary outcome considered was the rate of onset of BPB. Twelve studies (N = 725 patients) were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. A total of 41.84% (95% CI 33.58-50.11) of patients with AN-R manifested BPB at some point during follow-up. Risk factors for the onset of BPB included potentially treatable and untreatable factors such as the family environment, unipolar depression and higher premorbid BMI. These findings highlight that patients with AN-R frequently transition to BPB over time, with a worsening of the clinical picture. Existing studies in this field are still insufficient and heterogeneous, and further research is needed. Mental health professionals should be aware of the frequent onset of BPB in AN-R and its risk factors and take this information into account in the treatment of AN-R. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Evidence obtained from a systematic review and meta-analysis, Level I.

Melatonin In Acute Mania Investigation (MIAMI-UK). A randomized controlled trial of add-on melatonin in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Current options for treating emergent episodes of hypomania and mania in bipolar disorder are limited. Our objective was to compare the effectiveness and safety of add-on melatonin in hypomania or mania over 3 weeks as a well-tolerated therapy. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 3-week comparison of modified release melatonin (n = 21) vs placebo (n = 20) in adult bipolar patients aged 18-65 years. Permuted block randomization was used with participants and investigators masked to treatment allocation. Trial registration is ISRCTN28988273 and EUdraCT2008-000281-23. Approved by the South Central National Research Ethics Service (Oxford REC A) ref: 09/H0604/63. RESULTS: The trial was negative as there was no significant difference between melatonin and placebo on the primary outcome-mean Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score at Day 21: (mean difference [MD] -1.77 ([95% CI: -6.39 to 2.85]; P = .447). Significantly fewer patients on melatonin scored 10 or more on the Altman Self Rating Mania Scale: (odds ratio [OR] 0.164 [95% CI: 0.0260-1.0002]; P = .05). Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology Clinician Version-16 (QIDS-C16) scores were not significantly different. (OR 1.77 [95% CI: 0.43-7.29]; P = .430). The proportion of patients scoring less than or equal to 5 on the self-report QIDS-SR16 at end-point was greater for the melatonin group (OR 8.35 [95% CI: 1.04-67.23]; P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: In this small trial, melatonin did not effectively treat emerging hypomania or mania as there was no significant difference on the primary outcome. The sample size limitation and secondary outcomes suggest further investigation of melatonin treatment in mood episodes is indicated.

Impact of antipsychotics in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The net health benefit of using antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD is unclear. This review was performed to provide the evidence necessary to inform the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antipsychotics versus placebo for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. For efficacy, acceptability and safety we considered outcomes evaluated by the guideline panel critical and important for decision-making. Continuous outcomes were analyzed by using standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous outcomes by calculating the risk ratio (RR), with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias of included studies. Certainty in the evidence of effects was assessed according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 21 RCTs with 1,309 participants, comparing antipsychotics to placebo. Antipsychotics were found effective on "restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors" (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI - 0.35 to - 0.07, moderate certainty), "hyperactivity, inattention, oppositional, disruptive behavior" (SMD - 0.67, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.42, moderate certainty), "social communication, social interaction" (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.59 to - 0.16, moderate certainty), "emotional dysregulation/irritability" (SMD - 0.71, 95% CI - 0.98 to - 0.43, low certainty), "global functioning, global improvement" (SMD - 0.64, 95% CI - 0.96 to - 0.33, low certainty), "obsessions, compulsions" (SMD - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.06, moderate certainty). Antipsychotics were not effective on "self-harm" (SMD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.30, very low certainty), "anxiety" (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.82 to 0.07, very low certainty). Antipsychotics were more acceptable in terms of dropout due to any cause (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, moderate certainty), but were less safe in terms of patients experiencing adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.43, low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found antipsychotics for children and adolescents with ASD more efficacious than placebo in reducing stereotypies, hyperactivity, irritability and obsessions, compulsions, and in increasing social communication and global functioning. Antipsychotics were also found to be more acceptable, but less safe than placebo.

Equity, acceptability and feasibility of using polyunsaturated fatty acids in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a rapid systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Some recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the efficacy and safety of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for the treatment of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). To optimally inform the Italian guideline for the management of ASD in children and adolescents, we reviewed the impact on equity, acceptability and feasibility for developing a pilot recommendation for PUFAs. METHODS: We performed a rapid systematic review of observational and experimental studies on PUFAs for children and adolescents with ASD, extracting data on resources required, equity, acceptability, and feasibility of PUFAs. We followed the framework provided by the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and we assessed risk of bias and methodological quality of included studies. Results were synthesized both narratively and quantitatively to address clinically relevant questions on equity, acceptability, and feasibility. RESULTS: We found 14 papers related to equity. PUFAs did not seem to impact equity importantly. We did not find variation in effectiveness across subgroups and in a base case scenario, the cost of a 12 weeks cycle of therapy with 1.155 g/day of PUFAs was €65.51 euro. The acceptability of PUFAs was evaluated in 17 studies, 9 of which were RCTs. PUFAs were widely used among children and adolescents with ASD (18 to 51%), and 50% of parents considered nutritional supplementation as useful. Difficulty in swallowing capsules and bad taste were identified as possible causes of poor compliance, but treatment adherence, when measured in included RCTs, was judged to be good to excellent. Discontinuation due to any cause for PUFAs could not differ from placebo (low certainty of evidence). The feasibility of using PUFAs was assessed in 12 studies. PUFAs were probably sustainable, and no particular critical issue emerged from the feasibility assessment. However, the evidence appeared scarce and indirect. CONCLUSIONS: We found the administration of PUFAs in children and adolescents with ASD to be potentially equitable, acceptable and feasible. These results are limited by the limited number and quality of retrieved documents, and need to be viewed in light of efficacy and safety data to formulate clinical recommendations.

Introduction and methods of the evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of autism spectrum disorder by the Italian National Institute of Health.

BACKGROUND: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neuro-developmental disorder that affects communication and behavior with a prevalence of approximately 1% worldwide. Health outcomes of interventions for ASD are largely Participant Reported Outcomes (PROs). Specific guidelines can help support the best care for people with ASD to optimize these health outcomes but they have to adhere to standards for their development to be trustworthy. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this article is to describe the new methodological standards of the Italian National Institute of Health and novel aspects of this guideline development process. This article will serve as a reference standard for future guideline development in the Italian setting. METHODS: We applied the new standards of the Italian National Institute of Health to the two guidelines on diagnosis and management of children/adolescents and adults with ASD, with a focus on the scoping, panel composition, management of conflict of interest, generation and prioritization of research questions, early stakeholders' involvement, and PROs. Recommendations are based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. RESULTS: Following a public application process, the ISS established two multidisciplinary panels including people with ASD and/or their caregivers. Seventy-nine research questions were identified as potentially relevant for the guideline on children and adolescents with ASD and 31 for the one on adults with ASD. Questions deemed to have the highest priority were selected for inclusion in the guidelines. Other stakeholders valued their early involvement in the process which will largely focus on PROs. The panels then successfully piloted the development of recommendations using the methodological standards and process set by the ISS with a focus on PROs. CONCLUSIONS: In this article, we describe the development of practice guidelines that focus on PROs for the diagnosis and management of ASD based on novel methods for question prioritization and stakeholder involvement. The recommendations allow for the adoption or adaptation to international settings.

Impact of polyunsaturated fatty acids on patient-important outcomes in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) claimed PUFAs to be effective for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but international guidelines have not considered yet this body of evidence. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of PUFAs in children and adolescents with ASD, for the Italian national guidelines on the management of ASD in children and adolescents. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing PUFAs versus placebo or a healthy diet for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. The outcomes considered were deemed by the guideline panel to be highly relevant to children and adolescents with ASD and to their caregivers. The outcomes included hyperactivity, quality of sleep, self-harm, aggression, irritability, anxiety, attention, adaptive functioning, social interaction, restricted and repetitive interests and behavior, communication, hyperactivity and disruptive behaviors coexistent with core symptoms. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and the rating of the confidence in the effect estimates according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We included 9 studies with 405 participants. The strength of evidence ranged from low to very low. Six studies included preschoolers and school-age children, three studies included both children and adolescents. The majority of participants were males (83.8%), with a mean age of 6.7 years. PUFAs were superior compared to placebo in reducing anxiety in individuals with ASD (SMD -1.01, 95% CI - 1.86 to - 0.17; very low certainty of evidence). Moreover, PUFAs worsened quality of sleep compared to a healthy diet (SMD 1.11, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.00; very low certainty of evidence). PUFAs were not better than placebo in reducing aggression, hyperactivity, adaptive functioning, irritability, restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors and communication. Effects on some critical outcomes such as sleep, self-harm and disruptive behavior are currently unknown. The main limitations were the small number of participants included in the RCTs and the dosage which varied greatly (from 200 mg/day to 1540 mg/day), making it difficult to address causal inference. CONCLUSIONS: PUFAs did not show evidence of effect in children and adolescents with ASD and the certainty of evidence as measured with the GRADE was low to very low. Further research is needed on this topic because the available evidence is inconclusive.

Acceptability, equity, and feasibility of using antipsychotics in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the administration of antipsychotics to children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is acceptable, equitable, and feasible. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to support a multidisciplinary panel in formulating a recommendation on antipsychotics, for the development of the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. A comprehensive search strategy was performed to find data related to intervention acceptability, health equity, and implementation feasibility. We used quantitative data from randomized controlled trials to perform a meta-analysis assessing the acceptability and tolerability of antipsychotics, and we estimated the certainty of the effect according to the GRADE approach. We extracted data from systematic reviews, primary studies, and grey literature, and we assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality of the published studies. RESULTS: Antipsychotics were acceptable (dropouts due to any cause: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.78, moderate certainty of evidence) and well tolerated (dropouts due to adverse events: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55-1.79, low certainty of evidence) by children and adolescents with ASD. Parents and clinicians did not raise significant issues concerning acceptability. We did not find studies reporting evidence of reduced equity for antipsychotics in disadvantaged subgroups of children and adolescents with ASD. Workloads, cost barriers, and inadequate monitoring of metabolic adverse events were indirect evidence of concerns for feasibility. CONCLUSION: Antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD were likely acceptable and possibly feasible. We did not find evidence of concern for equity.

Specialised early intervention teams (extended time) for recent-onset psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Psychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted effect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with FEP and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.' Specialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced, a recent-onset psychosis. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. Evidence suggests that once SEI treatment ends, improvements may not be sustained, bringing uncertainty about the optimal duration of SEI to ensure the best long-term outcomes. Extending SEI has been proposed as a way of providing continued intensive treatment and continuity of care, of usually up to five years, in order to a) sustain the positive initial outcomes of SEI; and b) improve the long-term trajectory of the illness. OBJECTIVES: To compare extended SEI teams with treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis. To compare extended SEI teams with standard SEI teams followed by TAU (standard SEI + TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis. SEARCH METHODS: On 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extended SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis and all RCTs comparing extended SEI with standard SEI + TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting usable data as included studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs, with a total 780 participants, aged 16 to 35 years. All participants met the criteria for schizophrenia spectrum disorders or affective psychoses. No trials compared extended SEI with TAU. All three trials randomly allocated people approximately two years into standard SEI to either extended SEI or standard SEI + TAU. The certainty of evidence for outcomes varied from low to very low. Our primary outcomes were recovery and disengagement from mental health services. No trials reported on recovery, and we used remission as a proxy. Three trials reported on remission, with the point estimate suggesting a 13% increase in remission in favour of extended SEI, but this included wide confidence intervals (CIs) and a very uncertain estimate of no benefit (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.31; 3 trials, 780 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two trials provided data on disengagement from services with evidence that extended SEI care may result in fewer disengagements from mental health treatment (15%) in comparison to standard SEI + TAU (34%) (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75; 2 trials, 380 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in rates of psychiatric hospital admission (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.52; 1 trial, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence), or the number of days spent in a psychiatric hospital (MD -2.70, 95% CI -8.30 to 2.90; 1 trial, 400 participants; low-certainty evidence). One trial found uncertain evidence regarding lower global psychotic symptoms in extended SEI in comparison to standard SEI + TAU (MD -1.90, 95% CI -3.28 to -0.52; 1 trial, 156 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether the use of extended SEI over standard SEI + TAU resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality, as so few deaths were recorded in trials (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.64; 3 trials, 780 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very uncertain evidence suggests that using extended SEI instead of standard SEI + TAU may not improve global functioning (SMD 0.23, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.76; 2 trials, 560 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was low risk of bias in all three trials for random sequence generation, allocation concealment and other biases. All three trials had high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention. For the risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessments and incomplete outcome data there was at least one trial with high or unclear risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There may be preliminary evidence of benefit from extending SEI team care for treating people experiencing psychosis, with fewer people disengaging from mental health services. Evidence regarding other outcomes was uncertain. The certainty of evidence for the measured outcomes was low or very low. Further, suitably powered studies that use a consistent approach to outcome selection are needed, but with only one further ongoing trial, there is unlikely to be any definitive conclusion for the effectiveness of extended SEI for at least the next few years.

Specialised early intervention teams for recent-onset psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Psychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted effect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with first episode psychosis (FEP) and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.' Specialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced a recent-onset psychosis. The purpose of SEI teams is to intensively treat people with psychosis early in the course of the illness with the goal of increasing the likelihood of recovery and reducing the need for longer-term mental health treatment. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, and occupational, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. A previous Cochrane Review of SEI found preliminary evidence that SEI may be superior to standard community mental health care (described as 'treatment as usual (TAU)' in this review) but these recommendations were based on data from only one trial. This review updates the evidence for the use of SEI services. OBJECTIVES: To compare specialised early intervention (SEI) teams to treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis. SEARCH METHODS: On 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting useable data as included studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs and one cluster-RCT with a total of 1145 participants. The mean age in the trials was between 23.1 years (RAISE) and 26.6 years (OPUS). The included participants were 405 females (35.4%) and 740 males (64.6%). All trials took place in community mental healthcare settings. Two trials reported on recovery from psychosis at the end of treatment, with evidence that SEI team care may result in more participants in recovery than TAU at the end of treatment (73% versus 52%; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.97; 2 studies, 194 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three trials provided data on disengagement from services at the end of treatment, with fewer participants probably being disengaged from mental health services in SEI (8%) in comparison to TAU (15%) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; 3 studies, 630 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer admissions to psychiatric hospital than TAU at the end of treatment (52% versus 57%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 4 studies, 1145 participants) and low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer psychiatric hospital days (MD -27.00 days, 95% CI -53.68 to -0.32; 1 study, 547 participants). Two trials reported on general psychotic symptoms at the end of treatment, with no evidence of a difference between SEI and TAU, although this evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -4.58 to 3.75; 2 studies, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A different pattern was observed in assessment of general functioning with an end of trial difference that may favour SEI (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66; 2 studies, 467 participants; low-certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether the use of SEI resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality at end of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.20; 3 studies, 741 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment in three of the four included trials; the remaining trial had unclear risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention, we considered all trials at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Two trials had low risk of bias and two trials had high risk of bias for blinding of outcomes assessments. Three trials had low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, while one trial had high risk of bias. Two trials had low risk of bias, one trial had high risk of bias, and one had unclear risk of bias for selective reporting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that SEI may provide benefits to service users during treatment compared to TAU. These benefits probably include fewer disengagements from mental health services (moderate-certainty evidence), and may include small reductions in psychiatric hospitalisation (low-certainty evidence), and a small increase in global functioning (low-certainty evidence) and increased service satisfaction (moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence regarding the effect of SEI over TAU after treatment has ended is uncertain. Further evidence investigating the longer-term outcomes of SEI is needed. Furthermore, all the eligible trials included in this review were conducted in high-income countries, and it is unclear whether these findings would translate to low- and middle-income countries, where both the intervention and the comparison conditions may be different.

Cognitive decline after carotid endarterectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative cognitive decline (pCD) occurs frequently (6 to 30%) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), although there are no exact estimates and risk factors are still unclear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine pCD incidence and risk factors in CEA patients. DESIGN: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of both randomised and nonrandomised trials following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: We searched Cochrane, PubMed/Medline and Embase databases from the date of database inception to 1 December 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We selected longitudinal studies including CEA patients with both pre-operative and postoperative cognitive assessments. Primary outcome was pCD incidence, differentiating delayed neurocognitive recovery (dNCR) and postoperative neurocognitive disorder (pNCD). dNCR and pNCD incidences were expressed as proportions of cases on total CEA sample and pooled as weighted estimates from proportions. Postoperative delirium was excluded from the study design. Secondary outcomes were patient-related (i.e. age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, contralateral stenosis, pre-operative symptoms, dyslipidaemia and statin use) and procedure-related (i.e. hyperperfusion, cross-clamping duration and shunting placement) risk factors for pCD. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences through a random effects model by using STATA 13.1 and RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Our search identified 5311 publications and 60 studies met inclusion criteria reporting a total of 4823 CEA patients. dNCR and pNCD incidence were 20.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 17.1 to 24.0] and 14.1% (95% CI, 9.5 to 18.6), respectively. pCD risk was higher in patients experiencing hyperperfusion during surgery (OR, 35.68; 95% CI, 16.64 to 76.51; P < 0.00001; I = 0%), whereas dNCR risk was lower in patients taking statins before surgery (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.77; P = 0.0004; I = 19%). Sensitivity analysis revealed that longer cross-clamping duration was a predictor for dNCR (mean difference, 5.25 min; 95% CI, 0.87 to 9.63; P = 0.02; I = 49%). CONCLUSION: We found high incidences of dNCR (20.5%) and pNCD (14.1%) after CEA. Hyperperfusion seems to be a risk factor for pCD, whereas the use of statins is associated with a lower risk of dNCR. An increased cross-clamping duration could be a risk factor for dNCR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CDR42017073633).

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions for individuals with cocaine and amphetamine addiction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend psychosocial interventions for cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction as first-line treatment, but it is still unclear which intervention, if any, should be offered first. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of all available psychosocial interventions (alone or in combination) for the short- and long-term treatment of people with cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any structured psychosocial intervention against an active control or treatment as usual (TAU) for the treatment of cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction in adults. Primary outcome measures were efficacy (proportion of patients in abstinence, assessed by urinalysis) and acceptability (proportion of patients who dropped out due to any cause) at the end of treatment, but we also measured the acute (12 weeks) and long-term (longest duration of study follow-up) effects of the interventions and the longest duration of abstinence. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences were estimated using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and the strength of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We followed the PRISMA for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42017042900). We included 50 RCTs evaluating 12 psychosocial interventions or TAU in 6,942 participants. The strength of evidence ranged from high to very low. Compared to TAU, contingency management (CM) plus community reinforcement approach was the only intervention that increased the number of abstinent patients at the end of treatment (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.24-6.51, P = 0.013), and also at 12 weeks (OR 7.60, 95% CI 2.03-28.37, P = 0.002) and at longest follow-up (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.33-7.17, P = 0.008). At the end of treatment, CM plus community reinforcement approach had the highest number of statistically significant results in head-to-head comparisons, being more efficacious than cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.02-5.88, P = 0.045), non-contingent rewards (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.32-8.28, P = 0.010), and 12-step programme plus non-contingent rewards (OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.13-14.69, P = 0.031). CM plus community reinforcement approach was also associated with fewer dropouts than TAU, both at 12 weeks and the end of treatment (OR 3.92, P < 0.001, and 3.63, P < 0.001, respectively). At the longest follow-up, community reinforcement approach was more effective than non-contingent rewards, supportive-expressive psychodynamic therapy, TAU, and 12-step programme (OR ranging between 2.71, P = 0.026, and 4.58, P = 0.001), but the combination of community reinforcement approach with CM was superior also to CBT alone, CM alone, CM plus CBT, and 12-step programme plus non-contingent rewards (ORs between 2.50, P = 0.039, and 5.22, P < 0.001). The main limitations of our study were the quality of included studies and the lack of blinding, which may have increased the risk of performance bias. However, our analyses were based on objective outcomes, which are less likely to be biased. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this network meta-analysis is the most comprehensive synthesis of data for psychosocial interventions in individuals with cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction. Our findings provide the best evidence base currently available to guide decision-making about psychosocial interventions for individuals with cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction and should inform patients, clinicians, and policy-makers.

Accuracy of serum procalcitonin for the diagnosis of sepsis in neonates and children with systemic inflammatory syndrome: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A number of biomarkers have been studied for the diagnosis of sepsis in paediatrics, but no gold standard has been identified. Procalcitonin (PCT) was demonstrated to be an accurate biomarker for the diagnosis of sepsis in adults and showed to be promising in paediatrics. Our study reviewed the diagnostic accuracy of PCT as an early biomarker of sepsis in neonates and children with suspected sepsis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was carried out in Medline/Pubmed, Embase, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, for studies assessing PCT accuracy in the diagnosis of sepsis in children and neonates with suspected sepsis. Studies in which the presence of infection had been confirmed microbiologically or classified as "probable" by chart review were included. Studies comparing patients to healthy subjects were excluded. We analysed data on neonates and children separately. Our primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of PCT at the cut-off of 2-2.5 ng/ml, while as secondary outcomes we analysed PCT cut-offs <2 ng/ml and >2.5 ng/ml. Pooled sensitivities and specificities were calculated by a bivariate meta-analysis and heterogeneity was graphically evaluated. RESULTS: We included 17 studies, with a total of 1408 patients (1086 neonates and 322 children). Studies on neonates with early onset sepsis (EOS) and late onset sepsis (LOS) were grouped together. In the neonatal group, we calculated a sensitivity of 0.85, confidence interval (CI) (0.76; 0.90) and specificity of 0.54, CI (0.38; 0.70) at the PCT cut-off of 2.0-2.5 ng/ml. In the paediatric group it was not possible to undertake a pooled analysis at the PCT cut-off of 2.0-2.5 ng/ml, due to the paucity of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: PCT shows a moderate accuracy for the diagnosis of sepsis in neonates with suspected sepsis at the cut-off of 2.0-2.5 ng/ml. More studies with high methodological quality are warranted, particularly in neonates, studies considering EOS and LOS separately are needed to improve specificity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42016033809 . Registered 30 Jan 2016.

Is 18F-FDG-PET suitable to predict clinical response to the treatment of geriatric depression? A systematic review of PET studies.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric depression is one of the most common psychiatric disorders in later life. It differs from earlier depression in its presentation, etiology, risk factors, protective factors and outcome. Positron emission tomography (PET) can be used to detect changes in neural circuitry in neuropsychiatric disorders, and several authors have assessed its role in the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with geriatric depression. We reviewed the current evidence on the use of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) in geriatric depressed patients to find predictors of treatment response. METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and the PsycINFO databases to find relevant peer-reviewed articles on PET in geriatric depression using the search terms ('PET' or 'positron emission tomography') and ('mood' or 'affective disorder' or 'affective disorders' or 'depression' or 'dysthymia' or 'seasonal affective disorder'). RESULTS: Eleven articles comprising 128 patients were included. We extracted data on glucose uptake of depressed patients and controls at baseline and after different types of intervention (total sleep deprivation followed by a recovery sleep and treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). CONCLUSIONS: 18F-FDG-PET showed significant alterations of glucose uptake in several brain areas, in particular the anterior cingulate cortex, which showed reduced metabolism after treatment, and was a predictor of treatment response.

Psychosocial interventions for psychostimulant misuse.

BACKGROUND: Psychostimulant misuse is a continuously growing medical and social burden. There is no evidence proving the efficacy of pharmacotherapy. Psychosocial interventions could be a valid approach to help patients in reducing or ceasing drug consumption. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for psychostimulant misuse in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (via CRSLive); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science and PsycINFO, from inception to November 2015. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/).All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing any psychosocial intervention with no intervention, treatment as usual (TAU) or a different intervention in adults with psychostimulant misuse or dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 52 trials (6923 participants).The psychosocial interventions considered in the studies were: cognitive behavioural therapy (19 studies), contingency management (25 studies), motivational interviewing (5 studies), interpersonal therapy (3 studies), psychodynamic therapy (1 study), 12-step facilitation (4 studies).We judged most of the studies to be at unclear risk of selection bias; blinding of personnel and participants was not possible for the type of intervention, so all the studies were at high risk of performance bias with regard to subjective outcomes; the majority of studies did not specify whether the outcome assessors were blind. We did not consider it likely that the objective outcomes were influenced by lack of blinding.The comparisons made were: any psychosocial intervention versus no intervention (32 studies), any psychosocial intervention versus TAU (6 studies), and one psychosocial intervention versus an alternative psychosocial intervention (13 studies). Five of included studies did not provide any useful data for inclusion in statistical synthesis.We found that, when compared to no intervention, any psychosocial treatment: reduced the dropout rate (risk ratio (RR): 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to -0.91, 24 studies, 3393 participants, moderate quality evidence); increased continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR: 2.14, 95% CI 1.27 to -3.59, 8 studies, 1241 participants, low quality evidence); did not significantly increase continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR: 2.12, 95% CI 0.77 to -5.86, 4 studies, 324 participants, low quality evidence); significantly increased the longest period of abstinence: (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.63, 10 studies, 1354 participants, high quality evidence). However, it should be noted that the in the vast majority of the studies in this comparison the specific psychosocial treatment assessed in the experimental arm was given in add on to treatment as usual or to another specific psychosocial or pharmacological treatment which was received by both groups. So, many of the control groups in this comparison were not really untreated. Receiving some amount of treatment is not the same as not receiving any intervention, so we could argue that the overall effect of the experimental psychosocial treatment could be smaller if given in add on to TAU or to another intervention than if given to participants not receiving any intervention; this could translate to a smaller magnitude of the effect of the psychosocial intervention when it is given in add on.When compared to TAU, any psychosocial treatment reduced dropout rate (RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89, 6 studies, 516 participants, moderate quality evidence), did not increase continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR: 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.72, 2 studies, 224 participants, low quality evidence), did not increase longest period of abstinence (MD -3.15 days, 95% CI -10.35 to 4.05, 1 study, 110 participants, low quality evidence). No studies in this comparison assessed the outcome of continuous abstinence at longest follow-up.There were few studies comparing two or more psychosocial interventions, with small sample sizes and considerable heterogeneity in terms of the types of interventions assessed. None reported significant results.None of the studies reported harms related to psychosocial interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The addition of any psychosocial treatment to treatment as usual (usually characterised by group counselling or case management) probably reduces the dropout rate and increases the longest period of abstinence. It may increase the number of people achieving continuous abstinence at the end of treatment, although this might not be maintained at longest follow-up. The most studied and the most promising psychosocial approach to be added to treatment as usual is probably contingency management. However, the other approaches were only analysed in a few small studies, so we cannot rule out the possibility that the results were not significant because of imprecision. When compared to TAU, any psychosocial treatment may improve adherence, but it may not improve abstinence at the end of treatment or the longest period of abstinence.The majority of the studies took place in the United States, and this could limit the generalisability of the findings, because the effects of psychosocial treatments could be strongly influenced by the social context and ethnicity. The results of our review do not answer the most relevant clinical question, demonstrating which is the most effective type of psychosocial approach.Further studies should directly compare contingency management with the other psychosocial approaches.

Dopamine agonists for the treatment of cocaine dependence.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine misuse is a disorder for which no pharmacological treatment of proven efficacy exists. Advances in neurobiology could guide future medication development. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and acceptability of dopamine agonists alone or in combination with any psychosocial intervention for the treatment of of people who misuse cocaine. SEARCH METHODS: We run the search on 12 January 2015. We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ICTRP, clinicaltrials.gov and screened reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing dopamine agonists alone or associated with psychosocial intervention with placebo, no treatment or other pharmacological interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty four studies, including 2147 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Comparing any dopamine agonist versus placebo, we found no differences for any of the outcomes considered: dropout (moderate quality of evidence), abstinence (low quality of evidence), severity of dependence (low quality of evidence), adverse events (moderate quality of evidence). This was also observed when single dopamine agonists were compared against placebo. Comparing amantadine versus antidepressants, we found low quality of evidence that antidepressants performed better for abstinence (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53) based on two studies with 44 participants. No differences were found for dropout or adverse events, for both moderate quality of evidence.The major flaws of the included studies concerned selection bias because most studies did not report information about sequence generation (80%) and allocation concealment methods (86%): half of the included studies were judged at unclear risk of performance bias and 62.5% at unclear risk of detection bias for what concerns subjective outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence from RCTs does not support the use of dopamine agonists for treating cocaine misuse. This absence of evidence may leave to clinicians the alternative of balancing the possible benefits against the potential adverse effects of the treatment. Even the potential benefit of combining a dopamine agonist with a more potent psychosocial intervention, which was suggested by the previous Cochrane Review (Soares 2003), is not supported by the results of this Cochrane Review update.

Comparing interventions for early psychosis: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis.

Background: 'Early Intervention in Psychosis' (EIP) services have been associated with improved outcomes for early psychosis. However, these services are heterogeneous and many provide different components of treatment. The impact of this variation on the sustained treatment effects is unknown. Methods: We performed a systematic review and component network meta-analysis (cNMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared specialised intervention services for early psychosis. We searched CENTRAL (published and unpublished), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science from inception to February 2023. Primary outcomes were negative and positive psychotic symptoms at 3-month and 1-year follow-up and treatment dropouts. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms and social functioning at 1-year follow-up. We registered a protocol for our study in PROSPERO (CRD42017057420). Findings: We identified 37 RCTs including 4599 participants. Participants' mean age was 25.8 years (SD 6.0) and 64.0% were men. We found evidence that psychological interventions (this component grouped all psychological treatment intended to treat, or ameliorate the consequences of, psychotic symptoms) are beneficial for reducing negative symptoms (iSMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.05, p = 0.014) at 3-month follow-up and may be associated with clinically relevant benefits in improving social functioning scores at 1-year follow-up (iSMD -0.52, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.01, p = 0.052). The addition of case management has a beneficial effect on reducing negative symptoms (iSMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.11, p = 0.030) and positive symptoms (iSMD -1.05, 95% CI -2.02 to -0.08, p = 0.033) at 1-year follow-up. Pharmacotherapy was present in all trial arms, meaning it was not possible to examine the specific effects of this component. Interpretation: Our findings suggest psychological interventions and case management in addition to pharmacotherapy as the core components of services for early psychosis to achieve sustained clinical benefits. Our conclusions are limited by the small number of studies and sparsely connected networks. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research.