1
|
Puntis S, Minichino A, De Crescenzo F, Cipriani A, Lennox B, Harrison R. Specialised early intervention teams (extended time) for recent-onset psychosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 11:CD013287. [PMID: 33135812 PMCID: PMC8094422 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013287.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Puntis
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | | | | | - Belinda Lennox
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Rachael Harrison
- Oxford University Medical School, Medical Sciences Divisional Office, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Puntis S, Minichino A, De Crescenzo F, Cipriani A, Lennox B, Harrison R. Specialised early intervention teams for recent-onset psychosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 11:CD013288. [PMID: 33135811 PMCID: PMC8092671 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013288.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Puntis
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | | | | | - Belinda Lennox
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Rachael Harrison
- Oxford University Medical School, Medical Sciences Divisional Office, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Schöttle D, Ruppelt F, Schimmelmann BG, Karow A, Bussopulos A, Gallinat J, Wiedemann K, Luedecke D, Rohenkohl AC, Huber CG, Bock T, Lambert M. Reduction of Involuntary Admissions in Patients With Severe Psychotic Disorders Treated in the ACCESS Integrated Care Model Including Therapeutic Assertive Community Treatment. Front Psychiatry 2019; 10:736. [PMID: 31708810 PMCID: PMC6822062 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00736] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2019] [Accepted: 09/13/2019] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective: The ACCESS treatment model offers assertive community treatment (ACT) embedded in an integrated care program to patients with severe psychotic disorders. Compared to standard care, it proved to be more effective in terms of service disengagement and other outcomes in patients with psychotic disorders over 12, 24, and 48 months. Many patients with severe mental disorders experience involuntary admissions which can be potentially traumatic. In this study, we assessed the effect of ACT on reducing involuntary admissions over an observation period of 4 years. Method: One hundred seventy-one patients treated in ACCESS were included in this study. The primary outcome was rate of involuntary admissions during 48 months. Secondary outcomes were differences between those with and without involuntary admissions in the 2 years prior to ACCESS regarding change of psychopathology, severity of illness, psychosocial functioning, quality of life, satisfaction with care, medication non-adherence, and service-disengagement. Results: Of 171 patients, 58 patients (33.9%) were involuntarily admitted to hospital in the past 2 years before entry. During the 4 years of treatment, 16 patients (9.4%) were involuntarily admitted to hospital which was a significantly lower rate compared to the 2 years before inclusion in ACCESS (p < .001). Comparing the two groups, larger improvements in severity of illness (p = .004) and functional status (p = .043) were detected in the group with no history of involuntary admissions. At 4-year follow-up, of the remaining patients, 69.2% (n = 81) were full adherent (p < .001), compared to 18.9% (n = 31) at baseline with no differences between the two groups over the study period (p = .25). Over 4 years, only 13 patients (13.2%) were service-disengaged due to non-practical reasons. Conclusions: In this long-term study, we were able to demonstrate a reduction in involuntary admissions in four treatment years compared to the 2 years prior to admission to the ACCESS model in patients with severe and mostly multiphase schizophrenia spectrum disorders and affective disorders with psychotic features. This may help prevent patients from suffering from a potentially traumatic experience during treatment in the psychiatric system. Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01888627.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Schöttle
- Psychosis Centre, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Centre of Psychosocial Medicine, Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Friederike Ruppelt
- Psychosis Centre, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Centre of Psychosocial Medicine, Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Benno G Schimmelmann
- University Hospital of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.,University Hospital of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University Centre of Psychosocial Medicine, Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Anne Karow
- Psychosis Centre, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Centre of Psychosocial Medicine, Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Alexandra Bussopulos
- Psychosis Centre, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Centre of Psychosocial Medicine, Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Gallinat
- Department of Adult Psychiatry, Universitäre Psychiatrische Kliniken Basel (UPK), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Klaus Wiedemann
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Centre of Psychosocial Medicine, Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Luedecke
- Psychosis Centre, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Centre of Psychosocial Medicine, Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Anja Christine Rohenkohl
- Psychosis Centre, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Centre of Psychosocial Medicine, Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Christian G Huber
- Department of Adult Psychiatry, Universitäre Psychiatrische Kliniken Basel (UPK), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Bock
- Psychosis Centre, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Centre of Psychosocial Medicine, Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Martin Lambert
- Psychosis Centre, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Centre of Psychosocial Medicine, Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Correll CU, Galling B, Pawar A, Krivko A, Bonetto C, Ruggeri M, Craig TJ, Nordentoft M, Srihari VH, Guloksuz S, Hui CLM, Chen EYH, Valencia M, Juarez F, Robinson DG, Schooler NR, Brunette MF, Mueser KT, Rosenheck RA, Marcy P, Addington J, Estroff SE, Robinson J, Penn D, Severe JB, Kane JM. Comparison of Early Intervention Services vs Treatment as Usual for Early-Phase Psychosis: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression. JAMA Psychiatry 2018; 75:555-565. [PMID: 29800949 PMCID: PMC6137532 DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0623] [Citation(s) in RCA: 441] [Impact Index Per Article: 73.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE The value of early intervention in psychosis and allocation of public resources has long been debated because outcomes in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders have remained suboptimal. OBJECTIVE To compare early intervention services (EIS) with treatment as usual (TAU) for early-phase psychosis. DATA SOURCES Systematic literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov without language restrictions through June 6, 2017. STUDY SELECTION Randomized trials comparing EIS vs TAU in first-episode psychosis or early-phase schizophrenia spectrum disorders. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Three independent investigators extracted data for a random-effects meta-analysis and prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The coprimary outcomes were all-cause treatment discontinuation and at least 1 psychiatric hospitalization during the treatment period. RESULTS Across 10 randomized clinical trials (mean [SD] trial duration, 16.2 [7.4] months; range, 9-24 months) among 2176 patients (mean [SD] age, 27.5 [4.6] years; 1355 [62.3%] male), EIS was associated with better outcomes than TAU at the end of treatment for all 13 meta-analyzable outcomes. These outcomes included the following: all-cause treatment discontinuation (risk ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.80; P < .001), at least 1 psychiatric hospitalization (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90; P = .003), involvement in school or work (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24; P = .01), total symptom severity (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.32; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.17; P < .001), positive symptom severity (SMD, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.11; P < .001), and negative symptom severity (SMD, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.14; P < .001). Superiority of EIS regarding all outcomes was evident at 6, 9 to 12, and 18 to 24 months of treatment (except for general symptom severity and depressive symptom severity at 18-24 months). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In early-phase psychosis, EIS are superior to TAU across all meta-analyzable outcomes. These results support the need for funding and use of EIS in patients with early-phase psychosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christoph U. Correll
- Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York,Department of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York,The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York,Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Britta Galling
- Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York,Department of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York,Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Aditya Pawar
- Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York
| | - Anastasia Krivko
- Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York
| | - Chiara Bonetto
- Section of Psychiatry, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Mirella Ruggeri
- Section of Psychiatry, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Thomas J. Craig
- Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, England
| | - Merete Nordentoft
- Mental Health Centre Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark,The Lundbeck Foundation Initiative for Integrative Psychiatric Research, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Vinod H. Srihari
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut,Specialized Treatment Early in Psychosis (STEP) Program, Connecticut Mental Health Center, New Haven
| | - Sinan Guloksuz
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut,Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Eric Y. H. Chen
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China,State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Science, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Marcelo Valencia
- Division of Epidemiological and Psychosocial Research, National Institute of Psychiatry, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Francisco Juarez
- Division of Epidemiological and Psychosocial Research, National Institute of Psychiatry, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Delbert G. Robinson
- Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York,Department of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York,The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York
| | - Nina R. Schooler
- Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York,Department of Psychiatry, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Mary F. Brunette
- Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Dartmouth, New Hampshire,Bureau of Behavioral Health, College of Health and Human Services (CHHS), Dartmouth, New Hampshire
| | - Kim T. Mueser
- Department of Occupational Therapy, Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts,Department of Psychiatry, Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts,Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Robert A. Rosenheck
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut,Department of Epidemiology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut,Department of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Patricia Marcy
- Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York,The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York
| | - Jean Addington
- The Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Department of Psychiatry, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Sue E. Estroff
- Department of Social Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | | | - David Penn
- Department of Psychology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | | | - John M. Kane
- Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York,Department of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York,The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York
| |
Collapse
|