What is a randomised controlled trial?

What Works to Reduce Sex Workers' Risk of Crime Victimization? A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

This scoping review investigates crime victimization prevention interventions among sex workers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the PRISMA method, we reviewed 11 papers referring to 8 studies that targeted the reduction of sex workers' victimization.

RESULTS

Effective strategies identified include community mobilization, peer-led outreach, establishment of safe spaces, legal empowerment, sociocultural activities, financial literacy training, and alcohol harm reduction initiatives. These approaches demonstrated significant reductions in victimization, improvements in community cohesion, and enhanced access to essential resources and support systems, thereby promoting the safety and well-being of sex workers. However, several challenges were also identified, such as high attrition rates, contamination, underreporting due to stigma, and variability in effectiveness across different socio-cultural and geographic contexts.

CONCLUSION

Despite the potential of these interventions, further research is needed, particularly from a criminological perspective, to better understand how these strategies can be refined and applied to improve the safety and well-being of sex workers.

Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care

BACKGROUND

A huge gap exists between the production of evidence and its uptake in clinical practice settings. To fill this gap, treatment guidelines, based on explicit assessments of the evidence base, are commonly used in several fields of psychiatry, including schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders. However, it remains unclear whether treatment guidelines have any material impact on provider performance and patient outcomes, and how implementation should be conducted to maximise benefit.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to examine the efficacy of guideline implementation strategies in improving process outcomes (performance of healthcare providers) and patient outcomes. We also explored which components of different guideline implementation strategies could influence them.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (March 2012 and August 2015), as well as references of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies that examined schizophrenia-spectrum disorders to compare guideline implementation strategies with usual care or to assess the comparative efficacy of different guideline implementation strategies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors worked independently and in duplicate to critically appraise records from 990 studies; six individual studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the six included studies, significant heterogeneity was found in the focus of the guideline, target of the intervention, implementation strategy, and outcome measures, so meta-analysis was carried out for antipsychotic co-prescribing only.

MAIN RESULTS

This review now includes six studies, with a total of 1727 participants. Of the six included studies, practitioner impact was assessed in four. Overall, risk of bias was rated as low or unclear, and all evidence in the 'Summary of findings' tables was graded as low or very low quality. Meta-analysis revealed that a combination of several guideline dissemination and implementation strategies targeting healthcare professionals did not reduce antipsychotic co-prescribing in schizophrenia outpatients (2 RCTs, N = 1082, RR 1.10 CI 0.99 to 1.23; corrected for cluster design: N = 310, RR 0.97, CI 0.75 to 1.25, very low-quality evidence). One trial, which studied a nurse-led intervention aimed at promoting cardiovascular disease screening, found a significant effect in the proportion of people receiving screening (Framingham score: N = 110, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.87), although in the analysis corrected for cluster design, the effect was no longer statistically significant (N = 38, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.03, very low-quality evidence).One trial reported the patient outcomes of global state, satisfaction with care, treatment adherence, and drug attitude; no effect between treatments was seen. Quality of life was not reported by any of the studies.One trial, which studied the use of re-written guideline text compared to original text, did not find a significant effect on staff receiving training (N = 68, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.21, low-quality evidence), staff receiving supervision (N = 68, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17, low-quality evidence), or staff providing psychological interventions (N = 68, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.18, low-quality evidence).Regarding participant outcomes, only one trial assessed the efficacy of a shared decision-making implementation strategy and found no impact on psychopathology, satisfaction with care, or drug attitude. Another single trial studied a multifaceted intervention to promote medication adherence and found no effect on adherence rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Considering the available evidence, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. The preliminary pattern of evidence suggests that uncertainty remains about clinically meaningful and sustainable effects of treatment guidelines on patient outcomes and how best to implement such guidelines for maximal benefit.

Does psychostimulant treatment in children with ADHD increase later risk of substance use disorder?

Psychostimulants are the first choice medication in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Despite the proven high efficacy of psychostimulants, at least in the short term, for ADHD core symptoms, concerns continue to be raised on their adverse effects, including putative increased risk of substance use disorders (SUDs). A recent multicentre, case-control, longitudinal, prospective, European study by Groenman and colleagues found that treatment with psychostimulants in children with ADHD lowered the risk of SUDs in adolescence. However, this finding is at odds with other recent evidence concluding that ADHD children with and without medication treatment history did not significantly differ on any subsequent SUDs rates. In the present paper, we discuss the study by Groenman and colleagues in view of its methodological strengths and limitations, and we suggest possible implications for day-to-day clinical practice.

Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care

BACKGROUND

A huge gap exists between the production of evidence and its take-up in clinical practice settings. To fill this gap, treatment guidelines, based on explicit assessments of the evidence base, are commonly employed in several fields of medicine, including schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders. It remains unclear, however, whether treatment guidelines have any impact on provider performance and patient outcomes, and how implementation should be conducted to maximise benefit.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to examine the efficacy of guideline implementation strategies in improving process outcomes (performance of healthcare providers) and patient outcomes. We additionally explored which components of different guideline implementation strategies can influence process and patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (March 2012), as well as references of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies that examined schizophrenia-spectrum disorders to compare guideline implementation strategies with usual care or to assess the comparative efficacy of different guideline implementation strategies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors worked independently and in duplicate to critically appraise records from 882 studies; five individual studies met the inclusion criteria and were considered. As critical appraisal of the five included studies revealed substantial heterogeneity in terms of focus of the guideline, target of the intervention, implementation strategy and outcome measures, meta-analysis was carried out for antipsychotic co-prescribing only.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the five included studies, practitioner impact was assessed in three. The five studies were generally at unclear risk of bias, and all evidence in the 'Summary of findings' table was graded by review authors as of very low quality. Meta-analysis of two studies revealed that a combination of several guideline dissemination and implementation strategies targeting healthcare professionals did not reduce antipsychotic co-prescribing in schizophrenia outpatients (two studies, n = 1,082, risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.23; corrected for cluster design: n = 310, RR 0.97, CI 0.75 to 1.25). One trial, which studied a nurse-led intervention aimed at promoting cardiovascular disease screening, found a significant effect in terms of the proportion of people receiving screening (blood pressure: n = 96, RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.28; cholesterol: n = 103, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70; glucose: n = 103, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.82; BMI: n = 99, RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.60; smoking status: n = 96, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.64; Framingham score: n = 110, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.87), although in the analysis corrected for cluster design, the effect was statistically significant for blood pressure and cholesterol only (blood pressure, corrected for cluster design: n = 33, RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.74; cholesterol, corrected for cluster design: n = 35, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99; glucose, corrected for cluster design: n = 35, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.21; BMI, corrected for cluster design: n = 34, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; smoking status, corrected for cluster design: n = 32, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.03; Framingham score, corrected for cluster design: n = 38, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.03; very low quality). Regarding participant outcomes, one trial assessed the efficacy of a shared decision-making implementation strategy and found no impact in terms of psychopathology, satisfaction with care and drug attitude. Another single trial studied a multifaceted intervention to promote medication adherence and found no impact in terms of adherence rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With only five studies meeting inclusion criteria, and with limited low or very low quality usable information, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. The preliminary pattern of evidence suggests that, although small changes in psychiatric practice have been demonstrated, uncertainty remains in terms of clinically meaningful and sustainable effects of treatment guidelines on patient outcomes and how best to implement such guidelines for maximal benefit.

Valproic acid, valproate and divalproex in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a recurrent illness that is amongst the top 30 causes of disability worldwide and is associated with significant healthcare costs. In the past, emphasis was placed solely on the treatment of acute episodes of bipolar disorder; recently, the importance of episode prevention and of minimisation of iatrogenicity has been recognised. For many years, lithium was the only mood stabiliser in common use, and it remains an agent of first choice in the preventative treatment of bipolar disorder. However, an estimated 20% to 40% of patients may not respond adequately to lithium. Valproate is an anticonvulsant drug that has been shown to be effective in acute mania and is frequently used in maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. When the acceptability of long-term treatment is considered, together with efficacy, the adverse event profile of a medication is also important. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the efficacy of valproate continuation and maintenance treatment:a) in preventing or attenuating manic, depressive and mixed episodes of bipolar disorder;b) in preventing or attenuating episodes of bipolar disorder in patients with rapid cycling disorder; and; c) in improving patients' general health and social functioning, as measured by global clinical impression, employment and marital stability.2. To review the acceptability to patients of long-term valproate treatment, as measured by numbers of dropouts and reasons for dropping out, by compliance and by reference to patients' expressed views regarding treatment.3. To investigate the adverse effects of valproate treatment (including general prevalence of side effects) and overall mortality rates.

SEARCH METHODS

Search of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register (CCDANCTR) (to January 2013), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE, (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). No language restrictions were applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies marketing valproate and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials allocating participants with bipolar disorder to long-term treatment with valproate or any other mood stabiliser, or antipsychotic drugs, or placebo. Maintenance treatment was defined as treatment instituted specifically or mainly to prevent further episodes of illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data. A double-entry procedure was employed by two review authors. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. For dichotomous data, risk ratios were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For statistically significant results, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH). For continuous data, mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) were calculated along with 95% CIs. MDs were used when the same scale was used to measure an outcome; SMDs were employed when different scales were used to measure the same outcome. The primary analysis used a fixed-effect model. Binary outcomes were calculated on a strict intention-to-treat (ITT) basis; dropouts were included in this analysis. When data were missing and the method of "last observation carried forward" (LOCF) had been used to do an ITT analysis, then the LOCF data were used.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised controlled trials (overall 876 participants) lasting 6 to 24 months were included. Two studies (overall 312 participants) compared valproate with placebo, four studies (overall 618 participants) valproate with lithium, one study (overall 23 participants) valproate with olanzapine and one study (overall 220 participants) valproate with the combination of valproate plus lithium. In terms of study quality, most studies reported the methods used to generate random sequence; however, only one study reported enough details on allocation concealment. Four of six included studies described their design as "double blind", but only two trials reported full details about blinding. Valproate was more effective than placebo in preventing study withdrawal due to any mood episode (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.93; NNTB 8), but no difference in efficacy was found between valproate and lithium (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20). Valproate was associated with fewer participants dropping out of treatment for any cause when compared with placebo or lithium (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95 and RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98, respectively). However, combination therapy with lithium plus valproate was more likely to prevent relapse than was monotherapy with valproate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.96). Significant differences in adverse event frequencies were found, and lithium was associated with more frequent diarrhoea, polyuria, increased thirst and enuresis, whereas valproate was associated with increased sedation and infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence supports the efficacy of valproate in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorder. Clinicians and patients should consider acceptability and tolerability profile when choosing between lithium and valproate-their combination or other agents-as long-term treatment for bipolar disorder.

What is a factorial trial?

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), typically, randomize participants to one of two intervention groups. It has been shown, however, that about 25% of RCTs published in the scientific literature randomize participants to three or more treatment groups. These studies are called 'multi-arm' trials: there may be, for instance, two or more experimental intervention groups with a common control group, or two control intervention groups such as a placebo group and a standard treatment group. A special case of multi-arm studies are factorial trials, which address two or more intervention comparisons carried out simultaneously, using four or more intervention groups.

Duloxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

BACKGROUND

Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, in primary and secondary care settings antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment. Amongst antidepressants many different agents are available. Duloxetine hydrochloride is a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine and has been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in the US for major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of duloxetine in comparison with all other antidepressant agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression.

SEARCH METHODS

MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), EMBASE (1974 to 2012), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2012. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical company marketing duloxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to duloxetine versus any other antidepressive agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and a double-entry procedure was employed. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (overall 5735 participants) were included in this systematic review. Of these, three trials were unpublished. We found 11 studies (overall 3304 participants) comparing duloxetine with one selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (six studies versus paroxetine, three studies versus escitalopram and two versus fluoxetine), four studies (overall 1978 participants) comparing duloxetine with a newer antidepressants (three with venlafaxine and one with desvenlafaxine, respectively) and one study (overall 453 participants) comparing duloxetine with an antipsychotic drug which is also used as an antidepressive agent, quetiapine. No studies were found comparing duloxetine with tricyclic antidepressants. The pooled confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy when comparing duloxetine with other antidepressants. However, when compared with escitalopram or venlafaxine, there was a higher rate of drop out due to any cause in the patients randomised to duloxetine (odds ratio (OR) 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.62 and OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.15, respectively). There was also some weak evidence suggesting that patients taking duloxetine experienced more adverse events than paroxetine (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.55).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine did not seem to provide a significant advantage in efficacy over other antidepressive agents for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. No differences in terms of efficacy were found, even though duloxetine was worse than some SSRIs (most of all, escitalopram) and newer antidepressants (like venlafaxine) in terms of acceptability and tolerability. Unfortunately, we only found evidence comparing duloxetine with a handful of other active antidepressive agents and only a few trials per comparison were found (in some cases we retrieved just one trial). This limited the power of the review to detect moderate, but clinically meaningful differences between the drugs. As many statistical tests have been used in the review, the findings from this review are better thought of as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be very comforting to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Most of included studies were sponsored by the drug industry manufacturing duloxetine. As for all other new investigational compounds, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind. In the present review no trials reported economic outcomes. Given that several SSRIs and the great majority of antidepressants are now available as generic formulation (only escitalopram, desvenlafaxine and duloxetine are still on patent), more comprehensive economic estimates of antidepressant treatment effect should be considered to better inform healthcare policy.

What is the European Medicines Agency?

In Europe, new medicines are approved or rejected on the basis of the results of studies carried out by the manufacturer and submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). This article briefly presents the main roles and responsibilities of the EMA and the key rules that govern the approval process. The main scientific limitations of this process are highlighted, together with some suggestions for dealing with them.

What is a Cochrane review?

Systematic reviews carried out by Cochrane Collaboration (an international network of researchers belonging to this independent, not-for-profit organization) are recognized worldwide as the highest standard in evidence-based healthcare. The main reason is that Cochrane reviews follow a common and specific methodology to limit bias and random error. In this issue, we highlight the most important methodological features of Cochrane reviews, also reporting details on the editorial process to publish the review in the Cochrane Library.

What is a run-in phase?

Run-in periods are frequently used when designing a clinical trial. In this paper we analysed the implications of runin periods for interpreting the results of clinical trials and applying these results in clinical practice. Study reports should indicate in details how run-in periods were carried out.

What is a clinical trial protocol?

Trial protocols are documents that describe the objectives, design, methodology, statistical considerations and aspects related to the organization of clinical trials. Trial protocols provide the background and rationale for conducting a study, highlighting specific research questions that are addressed, and taking into consideration ethical issues. Trial protocols must meet a standard that adheres to the principles of Good Clinical Practice, and are used to obtain ethics approval by local Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards.

What are evidence-based treatment recommendations?

In recent years new methodologies for developing treatment recommendations that give consideration to evidence, values, preferences and feasibility issues have been developed. One of the most well-developed approaches is the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. This article briefly presents how this methodology may be employed to develop treatment recommendations that might constitute a permanent infrastructure between primary research and everyday clinical practice.