Early Intervention for psychosis

Proponents of early intervention have argued that outcome might be improved if more therapeutic effort were focused on the early stages of schizophrenia. Early intervention in schizophrenia has two elements that are distinct from standard care: early detection and phase-specific treatment. Both elements may be offered in addition to standard care, or may be provided by a specialised early intervention team. Early intervention is now well established as a therapeutic approach in America, Europe and Australasia, but it is unclear how far early detection, phase-specific treatments, and the use of early intervention teams are underpinned by evidence of effectiveness.

This review aims to evaluate the effects of: i. early detection and treatment of people with prodromal symptoms; ii. the use of early intervention teams for people in their first episode of psychosis; and iii. phase-specific treatments for people in their first episode of psychosis.

We searched CINAHL (1982-2002), The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (November 2001), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (July 2003), EMBASE (1980-2002), MEDLINE (1966-2002), PsycINFO (1967-2002), reference lists and contacted the European First Episode Network (2003).

Randomised controlled trials designed to prevent progression to psychosis in people showing prodromal symptoms, or improve outcome for people with first episode psychosis. Eligible interventions, alone and in combination, included early detection, phase-specific treatments, and care from specialised early intervention teams. Non-randomised trials would only have been included if they had been studies of the effects of early detection strategies in reducing the duration of untreated psychosis (since this issue cannot be addressed by simple randomisation).

Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and cross-checked. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous data. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for continuous data.

In theory, seventeen different comparisons are possible, but the review only identified three studies that met inclusion criteria. One small trial (n=59) was concerned with a phase-specific intervention (low dose risperidone and cognitive behavioural therapy) for people with prodromal symptoms. This group were significantly less likely to develop psychosis at 6 month follow up than people who only received care from a specialised team which did not involve phase-specific treatment (n=59, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.08 to 0.89, NNT 4 CI 2 to 20). This effect was not significant at 12 month follow up (n=59, 1 RCT, RR 0.54 CI 0.23 to 1.30). Another trial found that people in their first episode receiving a phase-specific intervention (family therapy) plus out patient care did have reduced admission rates care compared with those who received only outpatient care (n=83, 1 RCT, RR 0.28 CI 0.13 to 0.62, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6). The applicability of this finding was, however, questionable.Finally, one last study (n=76), comparing phase-specific intervention (family therapy) plus specialised team with specialised team for people in their first episode of schizophrenia found no difference between intervention and control groups at 12 months for the outcome of relapse but confidence intervals were wide (n=76, RR 1.06 CI 0.31 to 3.65).

We identified insufficient trials to draw any definitive conclusions, although five ongoing trials should report shortly. The substantial international interest in early intervention offers an opportunity to make major positive changes in psychiatric practice, but this opportunity may be missed without a concerted international programme of research to address key unanswered questions.