Integrated versus non-integrated management and care for clients with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders : a qualitative systematic review of randomised controlled trials

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a qualitative review of randomised controlled trials in relation to the treatment of adults with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD). In particular, integrated approaches are compared with non-integrated approaches to treatment. Ten articles were identified for inclusion in the review. The findings are equivocal with regard to the superior efficacy of integrated approaches to treatment, although the many limitations of the studies need to be considered in our understanding of this finding. Clearly, this is an extremely challenging client group to engage and maintain in intervention research, and the complexity and variability of the problems render control particularly difficult. The lack of available evidence to support the superiority of integration is discussed in relation to these challenges. Much remains to be investigated with regard to integrated management and care for people with co-occurring and MH/SUD, particularly for specific combinations of dual diagnosis and giving consideration to the level of inter-relatedness between the disorders.

Treatment of cannabis use among people with psychotic disorders : critical review of randomised controlled trials

There is growing and converging evidence that cannabis may be a major risk factor in people with psychotic disorders and prodromal psychotic symptoms. The lack of available pharmacological treatments for cannabis use indicates that psychological interventions should be a high priority, especially among people with psychotic disorders. However, there have been few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions among this group. In the present study we critically overview RCTs of psychological and pharmacologic interventions among people with psychotic disorders, giving particular attention to those studies which report cannabis use outcomes. We then review data regarding treatment preferences among this group. RCTs of interventions within "real world" mental health systems among adults with severe mental disorders suggest that cannabis use is amenable to treatment in real world settings among people with psychotic disorders. RCTs of manual guided interventions among cannabis users indicate that while brief interventions are associated with reductions in cannabis use, longer interventions may be more effective. Additionally, RCTs reviewed suggest treatment with antipsychotic medication is not associated with a worsening of cannabis cravings or use and may be beneficial. The development of cannabinoid agonist medication may be an effective strategy for cannabis dependence and suitable for people with psychotic disorders. The development of cannabis use interventions for people with psychotic disorders should also consider patients' treatment preferences. Initial results indicate face-to-face interventions focussed on cannabis use may be preferred. Further research investigating the treatment preferences of people with psychotic disorders using cannabis is needed.

A systematic review of baseline psychosocial characterisation in dietary randomised controlled trials for weight loss

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To investigate the extent of baseline psychosocial characterisation of subjects in published dietary randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for weight loss. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Systematic review of adequately sized (nX10) RCTs comprising X1 diet-alone arm for weight loss were included for this systematic review. More specifically, trials included overweight (body mass index 425 kg/m2) adults, were of duration X8 weeks and had body weight as the primary outcome. Exclusion criteria included specific psychological intervention (for example, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT)), use of web-based tools, use of supplements, liquid diets, replacement meals and very-low calorie diets. Physical activity intervention was restricted to general exercise only (not supervised or prescribed, for example, VO2 maximum level). RESULTS: Of 176 weight-loss RCTs published during 2008–2010, 15 met selection criteria and were assessed for reported psychological characterisation of subjects. All studies reported standard characterisation of clinical and biochemical characteristics of subjects. Eleven studies reported no psychological attributes of subjects (three of these did exclude those taking psychoactive medication). Three studies collected data on particular aspects of psychology related to specific research objectives (figure scale rating, satiety and quality-of-life). Only one study provided a comprehensive background on psychological attributes of subjects. CONCLUSION: Better characterisation in behaviour-change interventions will reduce potential confounding and enhance generalisability of such studies.

Systematic analysis of changes in cannabis use among participants in control conditions of randomised controlled trials

Introduction Cannabis remains the most used illegal substance across the globe, and negative outcomes and disorders are common. A spotlight therefore falls on reductions in cannabis use in people with cannabis use disorder. Current estimates of unassisted cessation or reduction in cannabis use rely on community surveys, and few studies focus on individuals with disorder. A key interest of services and researchers is to estimate effect size of reductions in consumption among treatment seekers who do not obtain treatment. Effects within waiting list or information-only control conditions of randomised controlled trials offer an opportunity to study this question. Method This paper examines the extent of reductions in days of cannabis use in the control groups of randomised controlled trials on treatment of cannabis use disorders. A systematic literature search was performed to identify trials that reported days of cannabis use in the previous 30 (or equivalent). Results Since all but one of the eight identified studies had delayed treatment controls, results could only be summarised across 2–4 months. Average weighted days of use in the previous 30 days fell from 24.5 to 19.9, and a meta-analysis using a random effects model showed an average reduction of 0.442 SD. However, every study had at least one significant methodological issue. Conclusions While further high-quality data is needed to confirm the observed effects, these results provide a baseline from which researchers and practitioners can estimate the extent of change required to detect effects of cannabis treatments in services or treatment trials.

Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To quantify and compare the treatment effect and risk of bias of trials reporting biomarkers or intermediate outcomes (surrogate outcomes) versus trials using final patient relevant primary outcomes. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources All randomised clinical trials published in 2005 and 2006 in six high impact medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine. Study selection Two independent reviewers selected trials. Data extraction Trial characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were recorded according to a predefined form. Two reviewers independently checked data extraction. The ratio of odds ratios was used to quantify the degree of difference in treatment effects between the trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes, also adjusted for trial characteristics. A ratio of odds ratios >1.0 implies that trials with surrogate outcomes report larger intervention effects than trials with patient relevant outcomes. Results 84 trials using surrogate outcomes and 101 using patient relevant outcomes were considered for analyses. Study characteristics of trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes were well balanced, except for median sample size (371 v 741) and single centre status (23% v 9%). Their risk of bias did not differ. Primary analysis showed trials reporting surrogate endpoints to have larger treatment effects (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.60) than trials reporting patient relevant outcomes (0.76, 0.70 to 0.82), with an unadjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.47 (1.07 to 2.01) and adjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.46 (1.05 to 2.04). This result was consistent across sensitivity and secondary analyses. Conclusions Trials reporting surrogate primary outcomes are more likely to report larger treatment effects than trials reporting final patient relevant primary outcomes. This finding was not explained by differences in the risk of bias or characteristics of the two groups of trials.

Indirect comparisons of treatments based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials

Randomised controlled trials are the most effective way to differentiate between the effects of competing interventions. However, head-to-head studies are unlikely to have been conducted for all competing interventions.

Dexamethasone reduces pain, vomiting and overall complications following tonsillectomy in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background: Tonsillectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures, but there is debate whether systemic steroids should be used to reduce pain and post-operative complications.

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing latanoprost with timolol in the treatment of patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension

Aim - To evaluate the comparative efficacy and tolerance of latanoprost versus timolol through a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods - Systematic retrieval of RCTs of latanoprost versus timolol to allow pooling of results from head to head comparison studies. Quality of trials was assessed based on randomisation, masking, and withdrawal. Sensitivity analyses were used to estimate the effects of quality of study on outcomes. The data sources were Medline, Embase, Scientific Citation Index, Merck Glaucoma, and Pharmacia and Upjohn ophthalmology databases. There were 1256 patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension reported in 11 trials of latanoprost versus timolol. The main outcome measures were (i) percentage intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction for efficacy; (ii) relative risk, risk difference, and number needed to harm for side effects such as hyperaemia, conjunctivitis, increased pigmentation, hypotension, and bradycardia expressed as dichotomous outcomes; and (iii) reduction in systemic blood pressure and heart rate as side effects. Results - Both 0.005% latanoprost once daily and 0.5% timolol twice daily reduced IOP. The percentage reductions in IOP from baseline (mean (SE)) produced by latanoprost and timolol were 30.2 (2.3) and 26.9 (3.4) at 3 months. The difference in IOP reduction between the two treatments were 5.0 (95% confidence intervals 2.8, 7.3). However, latanoprost caused iris pigmentation in more patients than timolol (relative risk = 8.01, 95% confidence intervals 1.87, 34.30). The 2 year risk with latanoprost reached 18% (51/277). Hyperaemia was also more often observed with latanoprost (relative risk = 2.20, 95% confidence intervals 1.33, 3.64). Timolol caused a significant reduction in heart rate of 4 beats/minute (95% confidence interval 2, 6). Conclusion - This meta-analysis suggests that latanoprost is more effective than timolol in lowering IOP. However, it often causes iris pigmentation. While current evidence suggests that this pigmentation is benign, careful lifetime evaluation of patients is still justified.

Variation of clinical outcomes used in glaucoma randomised controlled trials:a systematic review

Purpose: In randomised clinical trials (RCTs) the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. The purpose of this review is to identify different clinical outcomes reported in glaucoma trials.

Methods We conducted a systematic review of glaucoma RCTs. A sample or selection of glaucoma trials were included bounded by a time frame (between 2006 and March 2012). Only studies in English language were considered. All clinical measured and reported outcomes were included. The possible variations of clinical outcomes were defined prior to data analysis. Information on reported clinical outcomes was tabulated and analysed using descriptive statistics. Other data recorded included type of intervention and glaucoma, duration of the study, defined primary outcomes, and outcomes used for sample size calculation, if nominated.

Results The search strategy identified 4323 potentially relevant abstracts. There were 315 publications retrieved, of which 233 RCTs were included. A total of 967 clinical measures were reported. There were large variations in the definitions used to describe different outcomes and their measures. Intraocular pressure was the most commonly reported outcome (used in 201 RCTs, 86%) with a total of 422 measures (44%). Safety outcomes were commonly reported in 145 RCTs (62%) whereas visual field outcomes were used in 38 RCTs (16%).

Conclusions There is a large variation in the reporting of clinical outcomes in glaucoma RCTs. This lack of standardisation may impair the ability to evaluate the evidence of glaucoma interventions.

A feasibility study testing four hypotheses with phase II outcomes in advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS3): a model for randomised controlled trials in the era of personalised medicine?

Background: Molecular characteristics of cancer vary between individuals. In future, most trials will require assessment of biomarkers to allocate patients into enriched populations in which targeted therapies are more likely to be effective. The MRC FOCUS3 trial is a feasibility study to assess key elements in the planning of such studies.

Patients and methods: Patients with advanced colorectal cancer were registered from 24 centres between February 2010 and April 2011. With their consent, patients' tumour samples were analysed for KRAS/BRAF oncogene mutation status and topoisomerase 1 (topo-1) immunohistochemistry. Patients were then classified into one of four molecular strata; within each strata patients were randomised to one of two hypothesis-driven experimental therapies or a common control arm (FOLFIRI chemotherapy). A 4-stage suite of patient information sheets (PISs) was developed to avoid patient overload.

Results: A total of 332 patients were registered, 244 randomised. Among randomised patients, biomarker results were provided within 10 working days (w.d.) in 71%, 15 w.d. in 91% and 20 w.d. in 99%. DNA mutation analysis was 100% concordant between two laboratories. Over 90% of participants reported excellent understanding of all aspects of the trial. In this randomised phase II setting, omission of irinotecan in the low topo-1 group was associated with increased response rate and addition of cetuximab in the KRAS, BRAF wild-type cohort was associated with longer progression-free survival.

Conclusions: Patient samples can be collected and analysed within workable time frames and with reproducible mutation results. Complex multi-arm designs are acceptable to patients with good PIS. Randomisation within each cohort provides outcome data that can inform clinical practice.

Overview of clinical outcome measures used in glaucoma randomised controlled trials (RCTs)

Background: In clinical trials the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. Glaucoma is a chronic eye disease and the leading cause of irreversible blindness in the world. A variety of outcomes has been used and reported in glaucoma RCTs.

Objectives: The purpose of this review is to identify different clinical outcome measures used in glaucoma RCTs between January 2006 and March 2012.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted using standard methodology. We searched for RCTs in glaucoma published in English with no restrictions on the population type or size, or applied interventions. All clinical outcomes were included. Patient-reported, pharmacokinetic and economic outcomes were excluded.

Results: The search strategy identified 4288 potentially relevant abstracts. There were 315 publications retrieved, of which 233 RCTs were included. A total of 967 clinical measures were reported. There were large variations in the definitions used to describe different outcomes and their measures. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was the most commonly reported outcome (used in 201 RCTs, 86%) with a total of 422 measures (44%). Amongst the IOPrelated measures, the most commonly used was mean IOP (n=143, 15% of all measures). Safety outcomes were commonly reported, in 145 RCTs (62%) whereas visual field outcomes were utilized in 38 RCTs (16%).

Conclusions: There is a large variability in clinical outcomes used for glaucoma RCTs and in the way each outcome is reported. This lack of standardisation may impair the ability to evaluate the evidence of glaucoma interventions.