BackgroundSuicide attempts constitute a serious clinical problem and have important implications for healthcare resources. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of case management using crisis postcards over a 6-month follow-up period.MethodA randomised controlled trial was conducted in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Prevention of further suicide attempts was compared between two groups with and without the postcard intervention. The intervention group consisted of 373 participants (139 males, 234 females; age: 39.8 ± 14.0 yrs.). The control group consisted of 388 participants (113 males, 275 females; age: 40.0 ± 16.0 yrs.). A survival analysis was used to test the effectiveness of the crisis postcard intervention for the prevention of suicide reattempts. Per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses were conducted.ResultsThe intention-to-treat analysis indicated that the crisis postcard had no effect (hazard ratio = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.56 – 1.29), whereas the per-protocol analysis showed a strong benefit for the crisis postcard (hazard ratio = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21 – 0.72).ConclusionAlthough the results of the present study indicated that the postcard intervention did not reduce subsequent suicide behaviour, our study provides an alteration to the postcard intervention. Further studies need to be conducted to clarify whether this type of intervention can reduce subsequent suicidal behaviour, with a particular focus on reducing the rate of loss to follow-up.
Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre-including this research content-immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
Monotherapy is recommended for schizophrenia treatment, but the risk-benefit issue of antipsychotic drug combination (except for clozapine) remains unclear. Risperidone, an atypical antipsychotic drug, has a lower incidence of extrapyramidal syndrome but higher risks of prolactinemia and metabolic syndrome than haloperidol, a typical agent. This study compared efficacy and safety of risperidone monotherapy versus low-dose risperidone plus low-dose haloperidol in schizophrenia. In this 6-week, double-blind study, patients were randomized to the combination group (2-mg/d risperidone plus 2-mg/d haloperidol, n = 46) or the monotherapy group (4-mg/d risperidone, n = 42). Efficacy assessments included Clinical Global Impression-Severity, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and subscales, Calgary Depression Scale, Global Assessment of Functioning, and Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36. Safety was rigorously monitored. Response was defined as 30% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score. The 2 treatment groups were similar in (1) demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline, (2) response rate, and (3) improvement in various psychopathological measures and quality of life at end point. The monotherapy group had a higher increase in prolactin levels (P = 0.04) and Simpson-Angus Scale scores (P = 0.04) and a higher percentage of biperiden use (P = 0.045). There were no significant between-group difference in changes in weight, vital signs, corrected QT interval, liver/renal function, fasting glucose level, and lipid profiles. The findings suggest that risperidone monotherapy may yield higher prolactin levels than a combination of low-dose risperidone plus low-dose haloperidol. The 2 treatment groups are similar in efficacy, life quality, and other safety profiles. Future long-term studies are warranted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.