Assessing prevention and FEP interventions
The second generation of studies of prevention programs has not confirmed, let alone extended, the earlier findings and meta-analyses. A 2020 report concluded CBT was still the most promising intervention; it was more effective than control treatments at 12 and 18 months, although not at 6, 24, or 48 months.33 This review included controlled, open-label, and naturalistic studies that assessed family therapy; omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids; integrated psychological therapy (a package of interventions that included family education, CBT, social skills training, and cognitive remediation); N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor modulators; mood stabilizers; and antipsychotics. In addition to the evidence supporting CBT, the results also indicated nonsignificant trends favoring family and integrated psychological therapy. Neither a 2019 Cochrane review34 nor a 2020 “umbrella” assessment of 42 meta-analyses9 found convincing evidence for the efficacy of any program components.
While these disappointing findings are at least partly attributable to the methodological challenges described above and in the Figure, other factors may hinder establishing effective interventions. In contrast to FEP studies, those focused on prevention had a very ambitious agenda (eliminating psychosis) and tended to downplay more modest intermediate outcomes. These studies also tended to assess new ideas with small samples rather than pursue promising findings with larger multi-site studies focused on a group of interventions. The authors of a Cochrane review observed “There is the impression that in this whole area there is a triumph of hope over adversity. There is the repeated hope invested in another—often unique—study question and then a study of fewer than 100 participants are completed. This results in the set of comparisons reported here, all 9 of which are too underpowered to really highlight clear differences.”34 To use a baseball analogy, it seems that investigators are “swinging for the fence” when a few singles are what’s really needed.
From the outset, the goals of FEP studies were more modest, largely ignoring the task of developing consensus definitions of recovery that require following patients for up to 5 to 10 years. Instead, they use intermediate endpoints based on adapting treatments that already appeared effective in patients with chronic mental disorders.35 As a consequence, researchers examining FEP demonstrated clear, albeit limited, salutary effects using large multi-site trials and previously established outcome measures.3,10,36 For instance, the Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode-Early Treatment Program (RAISE-ETP) study was a 2-year, multi-site RCT (N = 404) funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). The investigators reported improved indices of social function (eg, quality of life; education and work participation) and total ratings of psychopathology and depression compared with treatment as usual. Furthermore, they established that DUP predicted treatment response.35 The latter finding was underscored by improvement being limited to the 50% with <74 weeks DUP. Annual costs of the program per 1 standard deviation improvement in quality of life were approximately $1,000 for patients with <74 weeks DUP and $40,000 for those with >74 weeks DUP. Concurrent meta-analyses confirmed and extended these findings,16 showing higher remission rates; diminished relapses and hospital admissions; greater engagement in programming; greater involvement in work and school; improved quality of life; and other steps toward recovery. These studies were also able to establish a clear benefit of antipsychotic medications, particularly a high acceptance of long-acting injectable antipsychotic formulations, which promoted adherence and decreased some adverse events37; and early use of clozapine therapy, which improved remission rates and longer-term outcomes.38 Other findings underscored the need to anticipate and address new problems associated with effective antipsychotic therapy (eg, antipsychotic response correlates with weight gain, a particularly intolerable adverse event for this age group).39 Providing pre-emptive strategies such as exercise groups and nutritional education may be necessary to maintain adherence.
Limitations of FEP studies
The effect sizes in these FEP studies were small to medium on outcome measures tracking recovery and associated indicators (eg, global functioning, school/work participation, treatment engagement); the number needed to treat for each of these was >10. There is no clear evidence that recovery programs such as RAISE-ETP actually reduce longer-term disability. Most studies showed disability payments increased while clinical benefits tended to fade over time. In addition, by grouping interventions together, the studies made it difficult to identify effective vs ineffective treatments, let alone determine how best to personalize therapy for participants in future studies.
The next generation of FEP studies
While limited in scope, the results of the recent FEP studies justify a next generation of recovery interventions designed to address these shortcomings and optimize program outcomes.39 Most previous FEP studies were conducted in community mental health center settings, thus eliminating the need to transition services developed in academia into the “real world.” The next generation of NIMH studies will be primarily conducted in analogous settings under the Early Psychosis Intervention Network (EPINET).40 EPINET’s study design echoes that responsible for the stepwise successes in the late 20th century that produced cures for the deadliest childhood cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). This disease was successfully treated by modifying diverse evidence-based practices without relying on pharmacologic or other major treatment breakthroughs. Despite this, the effort yielded successful personalized interventions that were not obtainable for other severe childhood conditions.40 EPINET hopes to automate much of these stepwise advances with a learning health system. This program relies on data routinely collected in clinical practice to drive the process of scientific discovery. Specifically, it determines the relationships between clinical features, biologic measures, treatment characteristics, and symptomatic and functional outcomes. EPINET aims to accelerate our understanding of biomarkers of psychosis risk and onset, as well as factors associated with recovery and cure. Dashboard displays of outcomes will allow for real-time comparisons within and across early intervention clinics. This in turn identifies performance gaps and drives continuous quality improvement.
Continue to: Barriers to optimizing program efficacy for both models