Cognitive behavioral therapy program for cannabis use cessation in first-episode psychosis patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Intervention Programmes for First-Episode Psychosis: A Scoping Review

The aim of this scoping review was to map intervention programmes for first-episode psychosis by identifying their characteristics, participants, and specific contexts of implementation. It seems reasonable to suggest that early intervention may be beneficial in improving recovery outcomes and reducing the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP). Despite the expansion of these programmes, there are still some significant variations and barriers to access that need to be addressed. In line with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and the Participants, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework, this review encompasses studies focusing on individuals grappling with early-stage psychosis and their caregivers across a range of settings, including hospital and community environments. The review identified 47 studies from 2002 to 2023, which revealed a great deal of diversity in programme characteristics and implementation contexts. This reflects a global perspective. The results showed that there is a great deal of variety in the characteristics of the programmes, with interventions ranging from single-component strategies, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and cognitive remediation therapy (CRT), to multicomponent programmes that integrate a number of different approaches, including psychosocial, pharmacological, and family-focused strategies. The objectives included attempts to improve cognitive functioning; enhance coping skills; reduce caregiver burden; and address symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and hallucinations. It is notable that there was considerable variation in the frequency, duration, and follow-up periods of the interventions, with some lasting just three sessions over one month and others spanning five years and 48 sessions. The majority of the programmes were delivered in community or outpatient settings, although there were also examples of hospital- and home-based interventions. These findings highlight the value of early interventions and provide a useful resource for adapting programmes to different social and cultural contexts. It would be beneficial for future research to explore how these interventions can be tailored to diverse settings.

Cognitive behavioural therapy added to standard care for first-episode and recent-onset psychosis

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in the general population of people with schizophrenia. It is still unclear whether CBT can be effectively used in the population of people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding cognitive behavioural therapy to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT added to standard care vs standard care in first-episode or recent-onset psychosis, in patients of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (amongst SFM, CC, LK and IB) independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias using RoB2. Study authors were contacted for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured on a validated rating scale. Secondary outcomes included other specific measures of mental state, global state, relapse, admission to hospital, functioning, leaving the study early, cognition, quality of life, satisfaction with care, self-injurious or aggressive behaviour, adverse events, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 studies, of which 26 provided data on 2407 participants (average age 24 years). The mean sample size in the included studies was 92 participants (ranging from 19 to 444) and duration ranged between 26 and 52 weeks. When looking at the results at combined time points (mainly up to one year after start of the intervention), CBT added to standard care was associated with a greater reduction in overall symptoms of schizophrenia (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.08, 20 RCTs, n = 1508, I2 = 68%, substantial heterogeneity, low certainty of the evidence), and also with a greater reduction in positive (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.06, 22 RCTs, n = 1565, I² = 52%, moderate heterogeneity), negative (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.11, 22 RCTs, n = 1651, I² = 0%) and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.01, 18 RCTs, n = 1182, I² = 0%) than control. CBT added to standard care was also associated with a greater improvement in the global state (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.01, 4 RCTs, n = 329, I² = 47%, moderate heterogeneity) and in functioning (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.05, 18 RCTs, n = 1241, I² = 53%, moderate heterogeneity, moderate certainty of the evidence) than control. We did not find a difference between CBT added to standard care and control in terms of number of participants with relapse (relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.18, 7 RCTs, n = 693, I² = 48%, low certainty of the evidence), leaving the study early for any reason (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05, 25 RCTs, n = 2242, I² = 12%, moderate certainty of the evidence), adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.97, 1 RCT, n = 43, very low certainty of the evidence) and the other investigated outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review synthesised the latest evidence on CBT added to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis. The evidence identified by this review suggests that people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis may benefit from CBT additionally to standard care for multiple outcomes (overall, positive, negative and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia, global state and functioning). Future studies should better define this population, for which often heterogeneous definitions are used.

A Review of Digital Interventions to Decrease Cannabis Use Among Patients With Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders

OBJECTIVE

Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is associated with an elevated risk for psychiatric disorders and symptoms, contributing to poor health outcomes and increased medical costs. Unfortunately, interventions that simultaneously address cannabis use and co-occurring psychiatric disorders are limited in availability. Targeted digital interventions to reduce cannabis use could be beneficial for patients with psychiatric disorders. Digital interventions could be easily disseminated and used in numerous clinical locations, including outpatient, inpatient, residential, and community psychiatric treatment settings.

METHODS

Literature on digital cannabis reduction interventions for persons with psychiatric disorders was examined between April 2021 and June 2021. Articles were obtained from PubMed and PsycINFO databases. English language randomized controlled trials (RCT), feasibility and acceptability studies, pilot studies, and published protocols were included.

RESULTS

There is significant evidence that digital interventions can effectively reduce cannabis use in general, non-clinical populations. However, there is less literature examining interventions for persons living with co-occurring psychiatric illness-most of which is tailored to patients living with chronic psychosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is great need for accessible and tailored digital interventions for co-occurring CUD and psychiatric disorders.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Program for Cannabis Use Cessation in First-Episode Psychosis Patients: A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial

Despite the negative influence of cannabis use on the development and prognosis of first-episode psychosis (FEP), there is little evidence on effective specific interventions for cannabis use cessation in FEP. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of a specific cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for cannabis cessation (CBT-CC) with treatment as usual (TAU) in FEP cannabis users. In this single-blind, 1-year randomized controlled trial, 65 participants were randomly assigned to CBT-CC or TAU. The primary outcome was the reduction in cannabis use severity. The CBT-CC group had a greater decrease in cannabis use severity and positive psychotic symptoms over time, and a greater improvement in functioning at post-treatment than TAU. The treatment response was also faster in the CBT-CC group, reducing cannabis use, anxiety, positive and general psychotic symptoms, and improving functioning earlier than TAU in the follow-up. Moreover, patients who stopped and/or reduced cannabis use during the follow-up, decreased psychotic symptoms and increased awareness of disease compared to those who continued using cannabis. Early intervention based on a specific CBT for cannabis cessation, may be effective in reducing cannabis use severity, in addition to improving clinical and functional outcomes of FEP cannabis users.

Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse

BACKGROUND

Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for reduction in substance use in people with a serious mental illness compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

The Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (2 May 2018), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. Where meta-analyses were possible, we pooled data using a random-effects model. Using the GRADE approach, we identified seven patient-centred outcomes and assessed the quality of evidence for these within each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

Our review now includes 41 trials with a total of 4024 participants. We have identified nine comparisons within the included trials and present a summary of our main findings for seven of these below. We were unable to summarise many findings due to skewed data or because trials did not measure the outcome of interest. In general, evidence was rated as low- or very-low quality due to high or unclear risks of bias because of poor trial methods, or inadequately reported methods, and imprecision due to small sample sizes, low event rates and wide confidence intervals. 1. Integrated models of care versus standard care (36 months) No clear differences were found between treatment groups for loss to treatment (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; participants = 603; studies = 3; low-quality evidence), death (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.57; participants = 421; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), alcohol use (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56; participants = 143; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), substance use (drug) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25; participants = 85; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), global assessment of functioning (GAF) scores (MD 0.40, 95% CI -2.47 to 3.27; participants = 170; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), or general life satisfaction (QOLI) scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.38; participants = 373; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). 2. Non-integrated models of care versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at 12 months (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; participants = 134; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). 3. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.86; participants = 152; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), cannabis use at six months (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.15; participants = 47; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or mental state insight (IS) scores by three months (MD 0.52, 95% CI -0.78 to 1.82; participants = 105; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). 4. Contingency management versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.11; participants = 255; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence), number of stimulant positive urine tests at six months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06; participants = 176; studies = 1) or hospitalisations (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.93; participants = 176; studies = 1); both low-quality evidence. 5. Motivational interviewing (MI) versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at six months (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.64; participants = 62; studies = 1). A clear difference, favouring MI, was observed for abstaining from alcohol (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; participants = 28; studies = 1) but not other substances (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.42; participants = 89; studies = 1), and no differences were observed in mental state general severity (SCL-90-R) scores (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.21; participants = 30; studies = 1). All very low-quality evidence. 6. Skills training versus standard care At 12 months, there were no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 10.10; participants = 122; studies = 3) or death (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.42; participants = 121; studies = 1). Very low-quality, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 7. CBT + MI versus standard care At 12 months, there was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.59; participants = 327; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), number of deaths (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.76; participants = 603; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), relapse (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04; participants = 36; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence), or GAF scores (MD 1.24, 95% CI -1.86 to 4.34; participants = 445; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear difference in reduction of drug use by six months (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.60; participants = 119; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 41 RCTs but were unable to use much data for analyses. There is currently no high-quality evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over standard care for important outcomes such as remaining in treatment, reduction in substance use or improving mental or global state in people with serious mental illnesses and substance misuse. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results. Further high-quality trials are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.

Poor medication adherence and risk of relapse associated with continued cannabis use in patients with first-episode psychosis: a prospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Cannabis use following the onset of first-episode psychosis has been linked to both increased risk of relapse and non-adherence with antipsychotic medication. Whether poor outcome associated with cannabis use is mediated through an adverse effect of cannabis on medication adherence is unclear.

METHODS

In a prospective analysis of data acquired from four different adult inpatient and outpatient units of the South London and Maudsley Mental Health National Health Service Foundation Trust in London, UK, 245 patients were followed up for 2 years from the onset of first-episode psychosis. Cannabis use after onset of psychosis was assessed by self-reports in face-to-face follow-up interviews. Relapse data were collected from clinical notes using the WHO Life Chart Schedule. This measure was also used to assess medication adherence on the basis of both face-to-face interviews and clinical notes. Patients were included if they had a diagnosis of first-episode non-organic or affective psychosis according to ICD-10 criteria, and were aged between 18 and 65 years when referred to local psychiatric services. We used structural equation modelling analysis to estimate whether medication adherence partly mediated the effects of continued cannabis use on risk of relapse. The primary outcome variable was relapse, defined as admission to a psychiatric inpatient unit after exacerbation of symptoms within 2 years of first presentation to psychiatric services. Information on cannabis use over the first 2 years after onset of psychosis was investigated as a predictor variable for relapse. Medication adherence was assessed as a mediator variable on the basis of clinical records and self-report data. Study researchers (TS, NP, EK, and EF) rated the adherence.

FINDINGS

397 patients who presented with their first episode of psychosis between April 12, 2002, and July 26, 2013 had a follow-up assessment until September, 2015. Of the 397 patients approached for followed up, 133 refused to take part in this study and 19 could not be included because of missing data. 91 (37%) of 245 patients with first-episode psychosis had a relapse over the 2 years of follow-up. Continued cannabis use predicted poor outcome, including risk of relapse, number of relapses, length of relapse, and care intensity at follow-up. In controlled structural equation modelling analyses, medication adherence partly mediated the effect of continued cannabis use on outcome, including risk of relapse (proportion mediated=26%, βindirect effects=0·08, 95% CI 0·004 to 0·16), number of relapses (36%, βindirect effects=0·07, 0·003 to 0·14), time until relapse (28%, βindirect effects=-0·26, -0·53 to 0·001) and care intensity (20%, βindirect effects=0·06, 0·004 to 0·11) but not length of relapse (6%, βindirect effects=0·03, -0·03 to 0·09). The adjusted models explained moderate amounts of variance for outcomes defined as risk of relapse (R2=0·25), number of relapses (R2=0·21), length of relapse (R2=0·07), time until relapse (R2=0·08), and care intensity index (R2=0·15).

INTERPRETATION

Between 20% and 36% of the adverse effects of continued cannabis use on outcome in psychosis might be mediated through the effects of cannabis use on medication adherence. Interventions directed at medication adherence could partly help mitigate the harm from cannabis use in psychosis.

FUNDING

This study is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Clinician Scientist award.