BackgroundClinical guidelines recommend psychosocial interventions for cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction as first-line treatment, but it is still unclear which intervention, if any, should be offered first. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of all available psychosocial interventions (alone or in combination) for the short- and long-term treatment of people with cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction.Methods and findingsWe searched published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any structured psychosocial intervention against an active control or treatment as usual (TAU) for the treatment of cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction in adults. Primary outcome measures were efficacy (proportion of patients in abstinence, assessed by urinalysis) and acceptability (proportion of patients who dropped out due to any cause) at the end of treatment, but we also measured the acute (12 weeks) and long-term (longest duration of study follow-up) effects of the interventions and the longest duration of abstinence. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences were estimated using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and the strength of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We followed the PRISMA for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42017042900). We included 50 RCTs evaluating 12 psychosocial interventions or TAU in 6,942 participants. The strength of evidence ranged from high to very low. Compared to TAU, contingency management (CM) plus community reinforcement approach was the only intervention that increased the number of abstinent patients at the end of treatment (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.24–6.51, P = 0.013), and also at 12 weeks (OR 7.60, 95% CI 2.03–28.37, P = 0.002) and at longest follow-up (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.33–7.17, P = 0.008). At the end of treatment, CM plus community reinforcement approach had the highest number of statistically significant results in head-to-head comparisons, being more efficacious than cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.02–5.88, P = 0.045), non-contingent rewards (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.32–8.28, P = 0.010), and 12-step programme plus non-contingent rewards (OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.13–14.69, P = 0.031). CM plus community reinforcement approach was also associated with fewer dropouts than TAU, both at 12 weeks and the end of treatment (OR 3.92, P < 0.001, and 3.63, P < 0.001, respectively). At the longest follow-up, community reinforcement approach was more effective than non-contingent rewards, supportive-expressive psychodynamic therapy, TAU, and 12-step programme (OR ranging between 2.71, P = 0.026, and 4.58, P = 0.001), but the combination of community reinforcement approach with CM was superior also to CBT alone, CM alone, CM plus CBT, and 12-step programme plus non-contingent rewards (ORs between 2.50, P = 0.039, and 5.22, P < ...

No abstract

Background The net health benefit of using antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD is unclear. This review was performed to provide the evidence necessary to inform the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. Methods We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antipsychotics versus placebo for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. For efficacy, acceptability and safety we considered outcomes evaluated by the guideline panel critical and important for decision-making. Continuous outcomes were analyzed by using standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous outcomes by calculating the risk ratio (RR), with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias of included studies. Certainty in the evidence of effects was assessed according to the GRADE approach. Results We included 21 RCTs with 1,309 participants, comparing antipsychotics to placebo. Antipsychotics were found effective on “restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors” (SMD − 0.21, 95% CI − 0.35 to − 0.07, moderate certainty), “hyperactivity, inattention, oppositional, disruptive behavior” (SMD − 0.67, 95% CI − 0.92 to − 0.42, moderate certainty), “social communication, social interaction” (SMD − 0.38, 95% CI − 0.59 to − 0.16, moderate certainty), “emotional dysregulation/irritability” (SMD − 0.71, 95% CI − 0.98 to − 0.43, low certainty), “global functioning, global improvement” (SMD − 0.64, 95% CI − 0.96 to − 0.33, low certainty), “obsessions, compulsions” (SMD − 0.30, 95% CI − 0.55 to − 0.06, moderate certainty). Antipsychotics were not effective on “self-harm” (SMD − 0.14, 95% CI − 0.58 to 0.30, very low certainty), “anxiety” (SMD − 0.38, 95% CI − 0.82 to 0.07, very low certainty). Antipsychotics were more acceptable in terms of dropout due to any cause (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, moderate certainty), but were less safe in terms of patients experiencing adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.43, low certainty). Conclusions Our systematic review and meta-analysis found antipsychotics for children and adolescents with ASD more efficacious than placebo in reducing stereotypies, hyperactivity, irritability and obsessions, compulsions, and in increasing social communication and global functioning. Antipsychotics were also found to be more acceptable, but less safe than placebo.

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and non-affective psychoses such as schizophrenia are commonly acknowledged as discrete entities. Previous research has revealed evidence of high comorbidity between these conditions, but their differential diagnosis proves difficult in routine clinical practice due to the similarities between core symptoms of each disorder. The prevalence of comorbid non-affective psychoses in individuals with ASD is uncertain, with studies reporting rates ranging from 0% to 61.5%. We therefore performed a systematic review and pooled analysis of the available studies reporting the prevalence of non-affective psychosis in ASD. Fourteen studies, including a total of 1708 participants, were included, with a weighted pooled prevalence assessed at 9.5% (95% CI 2.6 to 16.0). In view of significant heterogeneity amongst the studies, subgroup analyses were conducted. We observed higher prevalence of non-affective psychoses among ASD inpatients versus outpatients, when operationalised criteria were used, and in studies with smaller sample sizes, whereas the figures were comparable between children and adults with ASD. Our results suggest that future studies involving larger samples should implement both operationalized criteria and specific scales for the assessment of psychotic symptoms in individuals with ASD. A deeper understanding of both differential and comorbid features of ASD and non-affective psychosis will be required for the development of optimized clinical management protocols.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES. Gambling Disorder (GD) is a major public health problem, leading to impaired socio-economical functioning and increased social costs. Although the research on this field has been rising over the years, approved treatment guidelines for GD are currently not available. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of adults with GD, to identify possible agreed-upon standards of care. METHODS. MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane electronic databases were searched up to September 2018 for systematic reviews on pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment of adults with GD. Twenty-three studies were eventually included in this meta-review. RESULTS. Studies reported promising results of opioid antagonists and mood stabilizers in reducing GD-related symptomatology. Lithium was particularly effective in gamblers with comorbid bipolar disorders. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) was the most commonly used psychological intervention and reduced global severity, gambling frequency, and financial loss. Motivational Interviewing (MI) seemed to improve several GD domains, alone or in combination with CBT. Self Help Interventions (SHIs) showed some efficacy in promoting treatment-seeking, and in combination with other treatments. CONCLUSIONS. We found moderate evidence of effect for CBT, but lower evidence for pharmacotherapy and SHIs. Results suggested some efficacy for MI in the shortbut not in the long-term. It is likely that certain interventions might be more effective than others on specific features of GD. Further studies are needed to compare the efficacy and acceptability of individual and combined psychosocial and pharmacological interventions, in order to deliver patient-tailored treatments.