Cargando…

Transition to psychosis in randomized clinical trials of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis compared to observational cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR-P) recruited in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohorts may display a different enrichment and hence risk of transition to psychosis. No meta-analysis has ever addressed this issue. METHODS: “Preferred Reporting Item...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salazar de Pablo, Gonzalo, Davies, Cathy, de Diego, Héctor, Solmi, Marco, Shin, Jae Il, Carvalho, Andre F., Radua, Joaquim, Fusar-Poli, Paolo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8390336/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34315555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.2222
_version_ 1783743070389403648
author Salazar de Pablo, Gonzalo
Davies, Cathy
de Diego, Héctor
Solmi, Marco
Shin, Jae Il
Carvalho, Andre F.
Radua, Joaquim
Fusar-Poli, Paolo
author_facet Salazar de Pablo, Gonzalo
Davies, Cathy
de Diego, Héctor
Solmi, Marco
Shin, Jae Il
Carvalho, Andre F.
Radua, Joaquim
Fusar-Poli, Paolo
author_sort Salazar de Pablo, Gonzalo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR-P) recruited in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohorts may display a different enrichment and hence risk of transition to psychosis. No meta-analysis has ever addressed this issue. METHODS: “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) and “Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (MOOSE)–compliant meta-analysis. PubMed and Web of Science were searched until November 2020 (PROSPERO:CRD42021229223). We included nonoverlapping longitudinal studies (RCTs-control condition and observational cohorts) reporting the transition to psychosis in CHR-P individuals. The primary effect size measure was the cumulative risk of transition at 0.5, 1, and 2 years follow-up in RCTs compared to observational cohorts. Random effects meta-analyses, heterogeneity assessment, quality assessment, and meta-regressions were conducted. RESULTS: Ninety-four independent studies (24 RCTs, 70 observational cohorts) and 9,243 individuals (mean age = 20.1 ± 3.0 years; 43.7% females) were included. The meta-analytical risk of transitioning to psychosis from a CHR-P stage was 0.091 (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.068–0.121) at 0.5 years, 0.140 (95% CI = 0.101–0.191) at 1 year and 0.165 (95% CI = 0.097–0.267) at 2 years follow-up in RCTs, and 0.081 (95% CI = 0.067–0.099) at 0.5 years, 0.138 (95% CI = 0.114–0.167) at 1 year, and 0.174 (95% CI = 0.156–0.193) at 2 years follow-up in observational cohorts. There were no between-group differences in transition risks (p > 0.05). The proportion of CHR-P individuals with substance use disorders (excluding alcohol and cannabis) was higher in observational cohorts (16.8, 95% CI = 13.3–21.0%) than in RCTs (3.4, 95% CI = 0.8–12.7%; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: There is no meta-analytic evidence supporting sampling biases in RCTs of CHR-P individuals. Further RCTs are needed to detect effective interventions to prevent psychosis in this at-risk group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8390336
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83903362021-09-09 Transition to psychosis in randomized clinical trials of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis compared to observational cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis Salazar de Pablo, Gonzalo Davies, Cathy de Diego, Héctor Solmi, Marco Shin, Jae Il Carvalho, Andre F. Radua, Joaquim Fusar-Poli, Paolo Eur Psychiatry Review/Meta-analysis BACKGROUND: Individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR-P) recruited in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohorts may display a different enrichment and hence risk of transition to psychosis. No meta-analysis has ever addressed this issue. METHODS: “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) and “Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (MOOSE)–compliant meta-analysis. PubMed and Web of Science were searched until November 2020 (PROSPERO:CRD42021229223). We included nonoverlapping longitudinal studies (RCTs-control condition and observational cohorts) reporting the transition to psychosis in CHR-P individuals. The primary effect size measure was the cumulative risk of transition at 0.5, 1, and 2 years follow-up in RCTs compared to observational cohorts. Random effects meta-analyses, heterogeneity assessment, quality assessment, and meta-regressions were conducted. RESULTS: Ninety-four independent studies (24 RCTs, 70 observational cohorts) and 9,243 individuals (mean age = 20.1 ± 3.0 years; 43.7% females) were included. The meta-analytical risk of transitioning to psychosis from a CHR-P stage was 0.091 (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.068–0.121) at 0.5 years, 0.140 (95% CI = 0.101–0.191) at 1 year and 0.165 (95% CI = 0.097–0.267) at 2 years follow-up in RCTs, and 0.081 (95% CI = 0.067–0.099) at 0.5 years, 0.138 (95% CI = 0.114–0.167) at 1 year, and 0.174 (95% CI = 0.156–0.193) at 2 years follow-up in observational cohorts. There were no between-group differences in transition risks (p > 0.05). The proportion of CHR-P individuals with substance use disorders (excluding alcohol and cannabis) was higher in observational cohorts (16.8, 95% CI = 13.3–21.0%) than in RCTs (3.4, 95% CI = 0.8–12.7%; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: There is no meta-analytic evidence supporting sampling biases in RCTs of CHR-P individuals. Further RCTs are needed to detect effective interventions to prevent psychosis in this at-risk group. Cambridge University Press 2021-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8390336/ /pubmed/34315555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.2222 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review/Meta-analysis
Salazar de Pablo, Gonzalo
Davies, Cathy
de Diego, Héctor
Solmi, Marco
Shin, Jae Il
Carvalho, Andre F.
Radua, Joaquim
Fusar-Poli, Paolo
Transition to psychosis in randomized clinical trials of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis compared to observational cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Transition to psychosis in randomized clinical trials of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis compared to observational cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Transition to psychosis in randomized clinical trials of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis compared to observational cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Transition to psychosis in randomized clinical trials of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis compared to observational cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Transition to psychosis in randomized clinical trials of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis compared to observational cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Transition to psychosis in randomized clinical trials of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis compared to observational cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort transition to psychosis in randomized clinical trials of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis compared to observational cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review/Meta-analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8390336/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34315555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.2222
work_keys_str_mv AT salazardepablogonzalo transitiontopsychosisinrandomizedclinicaltrialsofindividualsatclinicalhighriskofpsychosiscomparedtoobservationalcohortsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT daviescathy transitiontopsychosisinrandomizedclinicaltrialsofindividualsatclinicalhighriskofpsychosiscomparedtoobservationalcohortsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dediegohector transitiontopsychosisinrandomizedclinicaltrialsofindividualsatclinicalhighriskofpsychosiscomparedtoobservationalcohortsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT solmimarco transitiontopsychosisinrandomizedclinicaltrialsofindividualsatclinicalhighriskofpsychosiscomparedtoobservationalcohortsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT shinjaeil transitiontopsychosisinrandomizedclinicaltrialsofindividualsatclinicalhighriskofpsychosiscomparedtoobservationalcohortsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT carvalhoandref transitiontopsychosisinrandomizedclinicaltrialsofindividualsatclinicalhighriskofpsychosiscomparedtoobservationalcohortsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT raduajoaquim transitiontopsychosisinrandomizedclinicaltrialsofindividualsatclinicalhighriskofpsychosiscomparedtoobservationalcohortsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT fusarpolipaolo transitiontopsychosisinrandomizedclinicaltrialsofindividualsatclinicalhighriskofpsychosiscomparedtoobservationalcohortsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis