Review: Specialist programmes and second-generation antipsychotics reduce relapse after first-episode psychosis
B. Miller,Krystle Crittenden
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmh.2011.100098
2011-10-18
Evidence-Based Mental Health
Abstract:ED FROM Alvarez-Jiménez M, Parker AG, Hetrick SE, et al. Preventing the second episode: a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychosocial and pharmacological trials in fi rst-episode psychosis. Schizophr Bull 2011;37:619–30. Correspondence to: Mario Álvarez-Jiménez, ORYGEN Youth Health Research Centre, 35 Poplar Road, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC 3054, Australia; malvarez@unimelb.edu.au Sources of funding: Marqués de Valdecilla Public Foundation – Research Institute (FMV-IFIMAV), Santander, Spain; Colonial Foundation; National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. ▶ A table and references are available online at http://ebmh.bmj.com The study by Alvarez-Jiménez and colleagues, which explores effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to prevent relapse in patients with fi rst-episode psychosis (FEP), is welcomed. Relapse following remission in FEP is common1 and represents an important treatment issue right from the onset of illness. However, interventions to prevent relapse are largely overlooked in FEP, and current treatment guidelines for FEP are generally not evidence based. Although medication discontinuation is highly prevalent in FEP,2 there is also little information to determine which patients can be successfully tapered off of antipsychotic medications without relapse. This is the fi rst study to systematically evaluate, through meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials, the effi cacy of various interventions to prevent relapse in FEP. The most replicated fi ndings were that (1) specialist FEP programmes are superior to treatment as usual in reducing relapse rates and hospital days in the fi rst 2 years after illness onset and (2) second-generation antipsychotics are more effective to fi rst-generation agents for relapse prevention. However, these fi ndings are based on a relatively small number of studies and patients. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of diagnoses, interventions, pharmacologic agents and outcome measures between individual studies also limits the generalisability of the fi ndings. Nonetheless, this study represents an important effort to quantify the effi cacy of various intervention strategies, as well as shape future research agendas. Given the adverse effects of psychotic relapse, the lack of well-conducted trials of psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions – alone and in combination – should serve as a resounding ‘call to arms’ to this fi eld. As the Psychoses Workgroup for DSM-V (anticipated release in May 2013) is considering the addition of prodromal or high-risk psychosis as a diagnostic category, evidence for the effi cacy of specialist FEP programmes aligns well with increased attention and efforts at early diagnosis. Furthermore, more information is needed to guide decisions regarding long-term maintenance of antipsychotic medications versus discontinuation in order to minimise the risk of relapse. Brian J Miller,1 Krystle Crittenden1 1Department of Psychiatry and Health Behavior, Georgia Health Sciences University City, Augusta, Georgia, USA Competing interests None. OM M EN TA RY 13_ebmental-2011-100098.indd 101 10/13/2011 4:37:32 PM