Switching antipsychotic medication to reduce sexual dysfunction in people with psychosis: the REMEDY RCT.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction is common among people who are prescribed antipsychotic medication for psychosis. Sexual dysfunction can impair quality of life and reduce treatment adherence. Switching antipsychotic medication may help, but the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this approach is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether or not switching antipsychotic medication provides a clinically effective and cost-effective method to reduce sexual dysfunction in people with psychosis. DESIGN: A two-arm, researcher-blind, pilot randomised trial with a parallel qualitative study and an internal pilot phase. Study participants were randomised to enhanced standard care plus a switch of antipsychotic medication or enhanced standard care alone in a 1 : 1 ratio. Randomisation was via an independent and remote web-based service using dynamic adaptive allocation, stratified by age, gender, Trust and relationship status. SETTING: NHS secondary care mental health services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants had to be aged ≥ 18 years, have schizophrenia or related psychoses and experience sexual dysfunction associated with the use of antipsychotic medication. We recruited only people for whom reduction in medication dosage was ineffective or inappropriate. We excluded those who were acutely unwell, had had a change in antipsychotic medication in the last 6 weeks, were currently prescribed clozapine or whose sexual dysfunction was believed to be due to a coexisting physical or mental disorder. INTERVENTIONS: Switching to an equivalent dose of one of three antipsychotic medications that are considered to have a relatively low propensity for sexual side effects (i.e. quetiapine, aripiprazole or olanzapine). All participants were offered brief psychoeducation and support to discuss their sexual health and functioning. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported sexual dysfunction, measured using the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale. Secondary outcomes were researcher-rated sexual functioning, mental health, side effects of medication, health-related quality of life and service utilisation. Outcomes were assessed 3 and 6 months after randomisation. Qualitative data were collected from a purposive sample of patients and clinicians to explore barriers to recruitment. SAMPLE SIZE: Allowing for a 20% loss to follow-up, we needed to recruit 216 participants to have 90% power to detect a 3-point difference in total Arizona Sexual Experience Scale score (standard deviation 6.0 points) using a 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: The internal pilot was discontinued after 12 months because of low recruitment. Ninety-eight patients were referred to the study between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019, of whom 10 were randomised. Eight (80%) participants were followed up 3 months later. Barriers to referral and recruitment included staff apprehensions about discussing side effects, reluctance among patients to switch medication and reticence of both staff and patients to talk about sex. LIMITATIONS: Insufficient numbers of participants were recruited to examine the study hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: It may not be possible to conduct a successful randomised trial of switching antipsychotic medication for sexual functioning in people with psychosis in the NHS at this time. FUTURE WORK: Research examining the acceptability and effectiveness of adjuvant phosphodiesterase inhibitors should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12307891. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Antipsychotic medications can improve the mental health of people with psychosis but may also cause side effects. These include sexual side effects, such as reduced desire for sex or less pleasure from having sex. One way to try to tackle this problem is to switch the medicine people take to one that is thought less likely to cause these problems. However, it is unclear if this helps, and switching medication could potentially harm mental health or cause new side effects. We conducted a study to compare the effect of switching with not switching the medication of people with psychosis experiencing sexual side effects. We collected information about sexual functioning, mental health, quality of life and use of services at the start of the study and 6 months later. We also interviewed nurses, doctors and patients to get their views about the study. We recruited 10 patients over a 12-month period and conducted interviews with 51 clinicians and four patients. Many clinicians said that they found it difficult to talk to their patients about sex. Some thought that these problems occurred rarely and that other side effects mattered more to patients. Many patients were concerned about switching their medication, especially when it had improved their mental health. Others felt that these side effects were not very important, and some were not prepared to take part in a trial that could delay a change being made to their medication. We did not collect enough information to be able to find out if switching medication helps people who experience sexual side effects of antipsychotic drugs. It is important that clinicians ask about sexual side effects of antipsychotic medication and that further efforts are made to find ways to help patients who experience them.

Structured Psychological Support for people with personality disorder: feasibility randomised controlled trial of a low-intensity intervention.

BACKGROUND: National guidance cautions against low-intensity interventions for people with personality disorder, but evidence from trials is lacking. AIMS: To test the feasibility of conducting a randomised trial of a low-intensity intervention for people with personality disorder. METHOD: Single-blind, feasibility trial (trial registration: ISRCTN14994755). We recruited people aged 18 or over with a clinical diagnosis of personality disorder from mental health services, excluding those with a coexisting organic or psychotic mental disorder. We randomly allocated participants via a remote system on a 1:1 ratio to six to ten sessions of Structured Psychological Support (SPS) or to treatment as usual. We assessed social functioning, mental health, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care and resource use and costs at baseline and 24 weeks after randomisation. RESULTS: A total of 63 participants were randomly assigned to either SPS (n = 33) or treatment as usual (n = 30). Twenty-nine (88%) of those in the active arm of the trial received one or more session (median 7). Among 46 (73%) who were followed up at 24 weeks, social dysfunction was lower (-6.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -0.6, P = 0.03) and satisfaction with care was higher (6.5, 95% CI 2.5 to 10.4; P = 0.002) in those allocated to SPS. Statistically significant differences were not found in other outcomes. The cost of the intervention was low and total costs over 24 weeks were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: SPS may provide an effective low-intensity intervention for people with personality disorder and should be tested in fully powered clinical trials.

Psychological Support for Personality (PSP) versus treatment as usual: study protocol for a feasibility randomized controlled trial of a low intensity intervention for people with personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of long-term psychological treatment for people with some types of personality disorder. However, the high intensity and cost of these interventions limit their availability. Lower-intensity interventions are increasingly being offered to people with personality disorder, but their clinical and cost effectiveness have not been properly tested in experimental studies. We therefore set out to develop a low intensity intervention for people with personality disorder and to test the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial to compare the clinical effectiveness of this intervention with that of treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: A two-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, randomized controlled trial of Psychological Support for Personality (PSP) versus TAU for people aged over 18 years, who are using secondary care mental health services and have personality disorder. We will exclude people with co-existing organic or psychotic mental disorders (dementia, bipolar affective disorder, delusional disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizotypal disorder), those with cognitive or language difficulties that would preclude them from providing informed consent or compromise participation in study procedures, and those who are already receiving psychological treatment for personality disorder. Participants will be randomized via a remote system in a ratio of PSP to TAU of 1:1. Randomization will be stratified according to the referring team and gender of the participant. A single follow-up assessment will be conducted by masked researchers 24 weeks after randomization to assess mental health (using the Warwick and Edinburgh Well-Being Schedule), social functioning (using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L), incidence of suicidal behavior, satisfaction with care (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire), and resource use and costs using a modified version of the Adult Service Use Schedule. In addition to this, each participant will be asked to complete the patient version of the Clinical Global Impression Scale. Feasibility and acceptability will primarily be judged by study recruitment rate and engagement and retention in treatment. The analysis will focus principally on descriptive data on the rate of recruitment, characteristics of participants, attrition, adherence to therapy, and follow-up. We will explore the distribution of study outcomes to investigate assumptions of normality in order to plan the analysis and sample size of a future definitive trial. DISCUSSION: Most people with personality disorder do not currently receive evidence-based interventions. While a number of high intensity psychological treatments have been shown to be effective, there is an urgent need to develop effective low intensity approaches to help people unable to use existing treatments. PSP is a low intensity intervention for individuals, which was developed following extensive consultation with users and providers of services for people with personality disorder. This study aims to examine the feasibility of a randomized trial of PSP compared to TAU for people with personality disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN14994755 . Registered on 18 July 2017.

International multicentre randomised controlled trial of improvisational music therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder: TIME-A study.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary studies have indicated that music therapy may benefit children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of improvisational music therapy (IMT) on social affect and responsiveness of children with ASD. DESIGN: International, multicentre, three-arm, single-masked randomised controlled trial, including a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded centre that recruited in London and the east of England. Randomisation was via a remote service using permuted blocks, stratified by study site. SETTING: Schools and private, voluntary and state-funded health-care services. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged between 4 and 7 years with a confirmed diagnosis of ASD and a parent or guardian who provided written informed consent. We excluded children with serious sensory disorder and those who had received music therapy within the past 12 months. INTERVENTIONS: All parents and children received enhanced standard care (ESC), which involved three 60-minute sessions of advice and support in addition to treatment as usual. In addition, they were randomised to either one (low-frequency) or three (high-frequency) sessions of IMT per week, or to ESC alone, over 5 months in a ratio of 1 : 1 : 2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was measured using the social affect score derived from the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) at 5 months: higher scores indicated greater impairment. Secondary outcomes included social affect at 12 months and parent-rated social responsiveness at 5 and 12 months (higher scores indicated greater impairment). RESULTS: A total of 364 participants were randomised between 2011 and 2015. A total of 182 children were allocated to IMT (90 to high-frequency sessions and 92 to low-frequency sessions), and 182 were allocated to ESC alone. A total of 314 (86.3%) of the total sample were followed up at 5 months [165 (90.7%) in the intervention group and 149 (81.9%) in the control group]. Among those randomised to IMT, 171 (94.0%) received it. From baseline to 5 months, mean scores of ADOS social affect decreased from 14.1 to 13.3 in music therapy and from 13.5 to 12.4 in standard care [mean difference: music therapy vs. standard care = 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 0.81], with no significant difference in improvement. There were also no differences in the parent-rated social responsiveness score, which decreased from 96.0 to 89.2 in the music therapy group and from 96.1 to 93.3 in the standard care group over this period (mean difference: music therapy vs. standard care = -3.32, 95% CI -7.56 to 0.91). There were seven admissions to hospital that were unrelated to the study interventions in the two IMT arms compared with 10 unrelated admissions in the ESC group. CONCLUSIONS: Adding IMT to the treatment received by children with ASD did not improve social affect or parent-assessed social responsiveness. FUTURE WORK: Other methods for delivering music-focused interventions for children with ASD should be explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78923965. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.